Bring your karma
Join the waitlist today
HUMBLECAT.ORG

Explain Like I'm Five | Don't Panic!

Last sync: 1y ago
329
ELI5 ... Energy prices increasing when energy is 100% wind generated? (self.explainlikeimfive)
submitted 18h ago by ExposingYouLot
If my energy provider claims to provide 100% renewable energy from wind farms, why is the cost of that electric going up?

How is the cost from the wind increasing because of covid and the war?
MadstopSnow 1 points 18h ago
This is likely because you buy from the grid and your energy provider sells to the grid at market rates. This is a basic economics supply/demand problem. When there is a lot of demand for a product, the cost goes up. Almost always. In this particular case, the cost for non wind energy is going up (because of the war) so people who used to buy from Oil/Coal/Whatever are now trying to buy wind. They are trying to buy it, you are trying to buy it, there is only so much of it. The seller sells it for more and the cost goes up.
SvenTropics 1 points 13h ago
The main problem with wind or solar power is that it's not an on demand source. If the wind isn't blowing, your power would otherwise go out. They need a way to store the power of temporarily so that they can use it later. A battery of sorts. Unfortunately batteries are very expensive and also have very short lifespans. It seems primitive, but the best mechanism for storing power right now is to pump water to a higher elevation and then use it as a hydroelectric source when needed. At an individual scale, you could use something like a power wall. Unfortunately pumping water and then generating electricity from that is very wasteful.

Hydroelectric is the best "green" energy source at the moment not counting nuclear (because many people don't consider nuclear green) simply because you can create power 24/7 and adjust the flow as needed. However a drought drying up a dam can shut that off.
YodelingTortoise 1 points 12h ago
>Unfortunately pumping water and then generating electricity from that is very wasteful.

?

Pumped storage is like 80% efficient and can be effectively closed loop with no greater environmental impact beyond creation.

Battery is 85% with ongoing impacts
General_Josh 1 points 10h ago
Yeah they're incorrect on that detail, pumped hydro is reasonably efficient, the real problems there are in

1. Siting - Pumped hydro needs some very specific geographic requirements (body of water at a high elevation, right next to a body of water at a low elevation), and it runs into many of the same environmental/permitting issues as regular dams. You also want to locate it close to people (if it's in the middle of nowhere, you're going to need miles and miles of very expensive transmission lines)

2. Time delay - Pumped hydro is great at storing energy, but because it involves physically moving huge amounts of water around, it's never going to be as fast to respond as a solid state battery. Batteries can respond to grid fluctuations on the order of milliseconds, whereas pumped hydro takes on the order of minutes to hours. In a near future scenario where the grid is mostly running on intermittent renewables like wind and solar, that millisecond response time is going to be sorely needed. Currently, the grid's frequency is maintained by physically spinning turbines all synced up together; as traditional fossil fuel generators start to go away, we'll need to replace that frequency support with batteries, or else risk wild variations in grid frequency that could fry electronics.
GnarlieSheen123 1 points 7h ago
Wait so all turbines currently running are synced to create a frequency that all our electronics are tuned to? I've never heard that before
EtwasSonderbar 1 points 6h ago
Generators at Dinorwig pumped hydro station go from standstill to grid synchronised in 75 seconds, and with all turbines spinning in air, synchronised to the grid, it takes 16 seconds to go from 0 to 1800MW of generation.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

It's slower than batteries but does not take hours or even minutes.
StaysAwakeAllWeek 1 points 4h ago
>1. Siting - Pumped hydro needs some very specific geographic requirements (body of water at a high elevation, right next to a body of water at a low elevation

This is the most commonly quoted point against pumped hydro and it really isn't true. An ideal site makes it cheaper to build but really you can build one anywhere you can find a cliff with a flat area at the top. You can even use a disused mine as the lower lake and avoid needing a natural cliff
BobbyP27 1 points 5h ago
>whereas pumped hydro takes on the order of minutes to hours.

Not true. Dinorwig pumped storage hydro plant in the UK can go from standstill to \~1800 MW in 75 seconds, and from synchronised spinning-in-air to 1800 MW in 16 seconds.

To back up wind and solar, response times are not all that important. Weather systems move slowly and can be predicted multiple hours in advance with sufficient accuracy that the output that a given wind or solar plant is capable of will be known far enough in advance to start up or shut down relatively slow response backups. Where fast response is needed is for reaction to grid events like a major power station tripping offline unexpectedly, or things like the "TV pickup" where a popular TV show ends or a major sporting event finishes, prompting millions of people to go to the toilet (and flush it, causing water pumps to activate), open the fridge door or put on the kettle, all at the same time.
The_Middler_is_Here 1 points 6h ago
I wonder if you could let hydro handle the bulk of energy storage while batteries just provide for shorter, more temporary spikes. I assume that energy demand follows fairly predictable patterns on larger scales though.
StaysAwakeAllWeek 1 points 4h ago
>as traditional fossil fuel generators start to go away, we'll need to replace that frequency support with batteries,

Batteries aren't great for generating reactive power, and still aren't the absolute fastest and most efficient energy storage out there. These two technologies are better for ultra fast storage and conditioning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_condenser

Synchronous condensers are now increasingly being built with giant flywheels attached to the so they can also replace more of the inertia that is disappearing as coal plants shut down
ThatOtherGuy_CA 1 points 9h ago
On large turbines maybe, if you build a water tower in your back yard and try to use it for pumped storage, good like hitting 80%
SvenTropics 1 points 3h ago
Right, I didn't mean to imply that batteries weren't wasteful as well. Losing 1/5th of the power isn't great at this scale. On demand sources are still the best solution.
falco471 1 points 10h ago
How the hell is nuclear not green
Kaymish_ 1 points 7h ago
It is, but some people are dumb and refuse the truth.
FuriousRageSE 1 points 4h ago
Its because of the fear mongering that happened alot in the 70s (or so) and onwards, still happens today, but a bit less.

​

Same for the fat fear mongering, people today still fear fats (like butter, oil, in meat etc) because of a bad science done many decade aco.
Alittlemoorecheese 1 points 9h ago
They can have meltdowns, or the waste can make its way into the groundwater.

Unfortunately, when nuclear reactors were first introduced, the U.S. stupidly decided on the less expensive waste generating model. This requires storage of radioactive wastewater in underground bunkers or above ground steel vessels.

Breeder reactors are more expensive, but the wastewater can be reused. This is the option all nations should be choosing.
The_Middler_is_Here 1 points 5h ago
As is usual it's a matter of perspective. Nuclear waste is problematic, but it's much better than fossil fuels for everybody. Long term storage is also way more solved than you might imagine. Nuclear is still relatively unsafe in the green energy department but I believe it pulls ahead of hydroelectric. It's not about being perfect, just about being better than the alternatives.

But until fusion is a thing my vote is microwave power satellites.
shadowbred 1 points 3h ago
You should be more specific than just saying "breeder reactors" btw.

I know the word has become commonly.used to refer to certain designs that may have waste reduction advantages, but that isn't what a breeder reactor actually is. Those designs may also be breeders, but that's like calling a square a rectangle instead. It includes other things, too.

Simply being a breeder doesn't necessarily mean it won't produce waste nor that it can run on the waste produced by other reactor designs. Even in the cleaner designs there's still waste somewhere that needs to be disposed of.
OffbeatDrizzle 1 points 9h ago
Because you take the waste and dump it in the ground where it stays for thousands of years. It's a lot greener than say coal, but not green like renewables. It does seem absurd how countries shy away from it though considering how much more efficient it is - public perception is that it's "dangerous" because of... well the accidents of the past
storm6436 1 points 5h ago
Though, are the typical "green" solutions actually green in a fair comparison? Solar and wind have huge footprint requirements, which displaces wildlife. They both present hazards to what wildlife remain while in operation. Similarly, both are heavily dependant on rare earth minerals to the point where huge swaths of land get stripmined to produce said minerals. Energy requirements to refine them aren't cheap either.

Nuclear is dangerous when reactors break, but every meltdown and incidental release thus far has come from ancient reactor setups that were fundamentally flawed. The waste? You could fit literally all of it in a handful of Olympic swimming pools. If the politicians would stop farming votes by scaring people, breeder reactors would process 99% of that back into usable fuel and the 1% they wouldn't be able to recycle would be 10-100x less dangerous on a per unit basis. In terms of CO2 emissions, building the cooling towers is something like 99%+ of total expected emissions. Oh, and nuclear is a baseline energy supplier (ie. dependable high output) so you don't need to build twice as much capacity compared to what you expect to need like solar/wind, and you don't have to spend billions to mine even more rare earths to make batteries to paper over the depency issues...

You also don't have to drive baseline power delivery prices up to fund wide-scale grid reconstruction to mitigate the fact that undependable sources like wind/solar greatly complicates keeping the grid balanced.

"Green" really isn't as green as most people think it is.
Kipp-XC-66 1 points 11h ago
I've seen a (theoretical?) Use of heating sand (or something like that, it's been awhile) in an insulated silo and when the energy is needed the heat can be used like any other source to steam it up. Don't know the efficiency but supposedly it can store for large periods of time with minimal loss and no breakdown like batteries.
VanHalensing 1 points 9h ago
I’ve seen pictures of this. Salt is another medium used sometimes. Typically you see them with a tower in the center and a field of mirrors around it. Computers aim the mirrors continuously. I don’t know how efficient it is though. I think it’s more common to use electricity generated from solar or wind, use that with a resistive heater or similar, and apply that to a storage medium like you described. Again, not sure how much loss there is, or how large-scale this reasonably can be done.
SvenTropics 1 points 3h ago
Sure, but scaling is still an issue. You need to build a very large silo to store a moderate amount of power, and loss of heat would be substantial. Plus to reclaim it, you need to heat water to a vapor point, and that whole process is going to be wasteful as well. Bottom line, it's hard to store energy efficiently without having to build large battery farms.
djsizematters 1 points 12h ago
What if we used the extra energy to spin up a massive cylinder, then have the rotating mass run a generator when it's needed? We could cut out a few steps by storing it as kinetic energy.
Hatura 1 points 12h ago
Water reservoirs are basically that. Pump water up the hill during excess production and let it spin turbines during excess demand. More effective and efficient then batteries
charlesfire 1 points 11h ago
That's called a flywheel. They can store more energy per volume than classic batteries, are more durable, can charge and discharge faster than classic batteries, and can operate at lower and higher temperatures than classic batteries. However, since they are a mechanical system, they can't be shaped however we want, unlike chemical batteries. They are also much more dangerous when they fail.
PK1312 1 points 8h ago
"megawatt flywheel" is one of those phrases where, once you reach a certain base level understanding of the physics involved increases, it fills you with a primal fear response
monsignorbabaganoush 1 points 11h ago
There are some flywheel installations on the grid at MWh scale, though not many.

Batteries are being build at GWh scale for a few years now, and have been experiencing multiple YOY doublings. We are already seeing their impact.
SvenTropics 1 points 12h ago
Yeah, that would work. The issue is the sheer capacity of it. You need megawatts of storage. You are talking about some very large cylinders. Capacitors are used for short term leveling out. There are grids that do use batteries, but all these things run into a scaling issue.

It turns out the most practical solution is just to have lots of different ways to generate power and then have free market exchanges of energy and energy brokers so that supply and demand naturally balances out what you need versus what you get. If you want to encourage renewable sources of energy, we just apply a tax to the non-renewable sources and or apply a credit to the renewable ones. The system balances itself out so there's more investment in renewable sources.
AnyMonk 1 points 12h ago
There was systems like that, and probably there are some still left. I saw one like that, decades ago, that was used in the regional HQ of a bank as a no-break that was used till the diesel generators could take over in case of problems on the network. It was huge (something like 10 m long and 2 m high) and very loud but couldn't store enough energy for more than a couple minutes of the emergency load. At the time it was being changed to a system using truck batteries because it was cheaper and more reliable. So it is just a question that afaik chemical batteries are bad but kinetic energy is worst.
LurkingMcLurkerface 1 points 6h ago
There is a solution like this, a massive (truly massive) flywheel that is spun up during times of less demand to keep the carbon emitting fuel power stations from having to shut down at night. The flywheel can be used to counter demand deficits in the grid as the power plants speed up to meet the demand.
Megalocerus 1 points 12h ago
With grid power, the next cheapest source gets the price of the cheapest source that would come on if that source was not available (or a formula based on that effect.) It was designed to encourage companies to build low cost efficient power sources. It means the wind farm is paid at the rate of the gas turbine that would come on if there were no wind farms.
Dyslexic_youth 1 points 15h ago
Yea, so we're just buying lies.
Like this fixes nothing but makes people money and a feeling of well im not the one fucking it all up.
MadstopSnow 1 points 15h ago
No. This is good news. This is how markets work. The cost for wind energy goes up, and people build more of it increasing supply. When demand goes up, that drives supply. Supply rises and the ratio of wind to coal raise. CO 2 emissions goes down and prices stabilize.

If you didn't have wind, prices would be significantly higher.
shadowhunter742 1 points 13h ago
I'm pretty sure that ALL power prices have meet a minimum so that oil doesn't get massively undercut.
MadstopSnow 1 points 13h ago
No. There is no such thing happening in the US. If wind massively undercut carbon power it would massively increase demand for it and grid power buyers would jump in and bid up contracts, prices would stabilize.

The way to drive down prices a lot would be for all Americans to stop using power. Especially with all the heat which is driving up consumption for AC and a good economy which drives up manufacturing. For cheap power just go for a massive recession and Americans to be good with inside temps of 90 deg. 😁
RunningNumbers 1 points 13h ago
Only places like Hawaii burn oil for power generation. Unsubstantiated conjectures are not facts.
TheHillPerson 1 points 15h ago
Did anyone tell you the price would never increase?
[deleted] 1 points 15h ago
[removed]
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1 points 14h ago
**Please read this entire message**

---

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.

Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.

---

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.**
Yancy_Farnesworth 1 points 13h ago
I guess we could buy your lie that Putin isn't a huge contributor to much of the turmoil in the energy markets, but that's not exactly going to fix the problem is it?
Dyslexic_youth 1 points 12h ago
When the fuck did i talk about putin 🤔.
[deleted] 1 points 14h ago
[removed]
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1 points 14h ago
**Please read this entire message**

---

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

* Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*.

Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.

---

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.**
Draelon 1 points 13h ago
This… and there are plenty of costs that aren’t the free wind spinning… all those raises people want to give everyone add costs… expanding the infrastructure so it can handle everyone adding electric cars… add costs. Regulatory issues…. add costs. Random lawsuits or fines? You didn’t think those came out of the CEO/stocks, right? Add costs. I’m not against any of that… each is a discussion in itself that we could spend our lives debating, but there is a lot to a grid, and that turbine at the end or a coal power plant is a small part of it.
Infamhy 1 points 9h ago
, they are priced based on supply and demand.
FlibbleA 1 points 7h ago
That isn't really how the grid works. It produces whatever infrastructure exists to produce electricity to meet demand. A supplier cannot just buy more renewable for you instead of fossil because the fossil isn't there, they would have to actually invest in producing more generators for that electricity which would actually mean they are increasing supply to meet demand so price shouldn't change. At least based on a supply and demand argument.

The problem is your supplier is buying energy at a price that is the same regardless of what is generating it and it is all essentially set at the price of oil/gas. Even if you had a supplier that made contracts with energy generators to only get energy sourced from renewables they are still selling those contracts at a price that is the same as fossil fuel generation.
desqviewX 1 points 53m ago
In addition, to provide that wind energy, the company has other expenses that are tied to the traditional energy market. For example, fuel for maintenance or construction vehicles and backup generators, employee salaries, office rents, etc.

All of those things are tied to the rest of the economy and the price of energy heavily influences them.
bugi_ 1 points 17h ago
All electricity goes through the same grid. If you are next to a coal power plant, you probably get most of your electricity from it. Buying renewable energy means the provider promises to buy (or produce) an amount of renewable energy equal to your consumption. But not at the same time as your consumption necessarily. You get power even when there's no wind and wind provides power when it's windy no matter what. Usually nuclear and renewables work all the time and coal and gas are used to adjust production to match demand because it's easy and fast to ramp them up and down.
RunningNumbers 1 points 13h ago
The idea of using coal as peaker plants horrifies me still. Stoking a boiler is so dirty.
shakemyspeare 1 points 13h ago
I don’t think coal is often used for ramping. Nat gas is superior, as is hydro if you can get it.
bigboog1 1 points 8h ago
Hydro is terrible for peaking. Dam releases are calculated and set normally weeks before they can't just let an extra 200cfs go whenever they want. In conduit hydro is fixed on down stream demands as well. The only peak style Hydro would be pump storage and in reality that's just energy shifting.
Zeyn1 1 points 10h ago
Last time i researched it, coal was considered a base load plant. They are so huge they are always on.

Even hydro is easier to start and stop and they are load following generators.

Most peakers are natural gas, which really is the best use of the resource. We want relatively minor use of any fossil fuels, but it's just hard to beat natural gas for our current grid and technology level. And peaker plants are the least used so that's great.
RunningNumbers 1 points 4h ago
The dispatch order all changed when gas prices flipped. It’s been an issue environmental IO economists noticed a few years ago.

You can see even go to eia.gov and see the utilization of coal generators go down as the prices for gas go down.
bugi_ 1 points 13h ago
Hydro works pretty good but it's not available everywhere.
OptamusPriem 1 points 15h ago
Essentially you are paying extra for nothing. Its a scam
rjnd2828 1 points 14h ago
Did you read? They purchase wind power equal to your usage. There's no part of that that indicates a scam.
OptamusPriem 1 points 14h ago
Assume all consumers didnt pay for the promise of wind/solar. It would still be produced and consumed. So it doesnt really impact the energymix. How is that not a scam? And think of the other extreme: everyone pays for the promise and theres still coal/gas in the mix because wind and solar cant reliably cover all electricity needs. At least not today/near future.
rjnd2828 1 points 14h ago
I don't see in his post where he says they're paying extra. And you haven't explained why you think this wind energy would still be produced. So no I don't see any scam.
youthfulcavalier 1 points 14h ago
It is not a scam, it is a price signal. Customers will pay more for renewable energy because it makes them feel better. This incentivises energy providers to offer 100% renewable energy tariffs. To do that they need to buy more renewable energy which means there is more demand for renewables and therefore there will be more investment in building solar and wind farms. It is not a scam and it does work to promote the growth of renewables.
FlibbleA 1 points 7h ago
They are relating it to OP. Why is the price of their energy going up if it was 100% sourced from renewable energy when the marginal cost is very low and doesn't go up?

That is why it seems like a scam because it shouldn't go up.
Prunus-cerasus 1 points 17h ago
The cost of energy in the market at any given time is determined by the most expensive production method producing at that time. Otherwise that method would have to stop producing (can’t operate on a loss), and that can’t happen since demand and supply must always be equal in the grid.

At base consumption level, the most efficient (cheapest) power plants are used and the price is low. When demand increases, more expensive power generation methods must be brought online and the price has to make it possible.
created4this 1 points 15h ago
Yup, there is some work to decouple this, but essentially this is it.

The reason why this is needed is that we have some energy sources that are cheap to build, but expensive to run (like gas) and some which are cheap to run but expensive to build (nuclear) and some which are free to run, but expensive to build (solar, wind).

You can’t give the solar guys the marginal costs, because then nobody would build solar, so you give them the same money as you give the gas plants, and sometimes this means they make a shed load of cash, and sometimes they don’t because there isn’t demand. If there is often a high spot price then greed will cause the solar guys to build more to get that spot price, which will in general drive down the spot price. This has worked so well that the spot price has occasionally gone negative in Germany. If too much capacity gets added then when the turbines wear out they will just be turned off until it’s worth servicing them back to life.

Zero marginal cost is a very high risk for nuclear, because nuclear is so expensive to build and so cheap to run that it’s normally run continuously at 100% for 50+ years and as operating income is dependent on other generators you could lose 50 years of daytime income just because of a big solar investment. Hinckley’s contracts have a minimum unit price that is guaranteed so that it’s worth building the station.
sawbladex 1 points 15h ago
That's not how it works.

The price for power determines what methods are used, or rather determines what methods aren't used.

if the operating cost of a power production method is such that running it costs you enough more than the money you get it selling the power, than you stop running the power production method.
bugi_ 1 points 14h ago
Both can be true at the same time. With low consumption = low production only cheap sources (nuclear + renewables) are used. With increased demand you put more and more expensive production online to keep up. I know that in my energy market at least all production gets paid according to the highest cost method in use at any time.
RunningNumbers 1 points 13h ago
And you get the California power crisis of 2001 where the fixed retail price was below the flexible wholesale price paid to generators and thus no one wanted to deliver electricity to consumers.
Prunus-cerasus 1 points 8h ago
Same coin, two sides. If the price is not regulated, that is exactly how it works. If it didn’t, we would have blackouts.

I understand it can be hard to grasp the concept from this point of view when you are used to thinking about demand and supply in markets where it is ok to have excess or unfulfilled need. However, the power grid is different. Supply and demand must always be equal.
networknev 1 points 17h ago
Infrastructure must be maintained or reliability falls. Costs increase, maintenance increase rates go up. The continual adding of renewable energy is very costly as well, and tge continual increase on demand <electric cars> adds to the whole situation.
urmomaisjabbathehutt 1 points 12h ago
Every form of energy requires infrastructure and that infrastructure must be maintained and renewed

and the cheapest of those to build and maintain is renewables.

I'd give you that there is a price to pay for the transition to electrification and grid update, but the transition to electricity must be done anyway regardless of source

and the electrical network update is a necessary continuous process that has been going on from decades from the old local grids to the interconnected grid to the super grid to the smart grid of today and will continue in the future
networknev 1 points 12h ago
I am in the industry. Every pole, every capacitor, transformer, substation, transmission and distribution components or sites have many devices, plc, rtu, sensors, electromechanical switching gear, servers, switches, routers, on and on. These all send data, SCADA and non-SACDA data back to control rooms, and systems. Operators monitor these systems, balance and move loads. Field operators repair and upgrade components regularly.
And as the old equipment ages out it must be replaced.
Most of the data systems have to be modern and constantly upgraded.
Cyber and physical security are two very hot topics in energy today and regulatory bodies require maintaining systems to standards that become increasingly more stringent, requiring more security, redundancy and increase reliability.
This is very costly.
Add in EV chargers being placed in homes and home solar. The demand for controlled costs. This requires more sensors so the electric grid is more efficient.
We shove power down the line and hope it reaches you and put large capacitors on poles to help. But that isn't efficient. So new sensors, new meters on every consumer, bring back the data, analyze it and change power distribution based on better data.
Do you know how they find line breaks? People call and complain, roll trucks, go look for a problem. That isn't efficient either, power is important, time to recovery is a significant metric, so more sensors, more data, faster discovery of problems, better service....

Tons of costs. It's huge. Energy isn't simple, it isn't stagnant. It's complex, dynamic and hugely important. And very costly.
urmomaisjabbathehutt 1 points 12h ago
I agree that there is a cost to pay for the transition and upgrades

imagine we had to start building gas infrastructure instead, instead of wind turbines you will need extraction platforms, instead of pillars and transformers you would need refinery, pipes transport, storage.....you name it

For example, British gas had been testing hydrogen to substitute natural gas some test running with natural gas mixed with hydrogen i guessing as an intermediary step and some test with just hydrogen which requires new storage, infrastructure and appliances

imagine the cost of lying down all that new infrastructure piping and appliances to run hydrogen in every British home that uses natural gas, compared to electrification
ohirony 1 points 7h ago
Renewables are cheap if we don't build the storage.
urmomaisjabbathehutt 1 points 6h ago
And the rest require continuous supply of combustible and the additional complexity is more expensive to maintain
JetScootr 1 points 18h ago
In large scale, energy is bought and sold bsaed on supply and demand. "*How it is made"* is not a factor in deciding the price of commodities.
formerlyanonymous_ 1 points 17h ago
It can be, and was at one time in some markets. If more people want purely renewable power, they may pay a premium to lock in capacity. There may be dozens of cars available, but only one red one. Someone may pay a premium for the red one.

As renewables have scaled up, this is often no longer the case.
agate_ 1 points 15h ago
The point, though, is that if there’s a blue car shortage, the cost of red cars will go up too, because people who don’t care what color the car is have fewer cars overall to buy.
i_was_there_then 1 points 18h ago
The cost of energy is a wholesale market, it changes constantly like the stock market does. If supply exceeds demand you can even end up with negative prices

(https://slate.com/business/2015/09/texas-electricity-goes-negative-wind-power-was-so-plentiful-one-night-that-producers-paid-the-state-to-take-it.html)
647843267b1 1 points 14h ago
This is only true in certain states with deregulated markets. In other states the utilities dispatch generation themselves.
legenDARRY 1 points 6h ago
It was negative in Europe this past weekend and has been a few times before as well.

Link
kgbtrill 1 points 17h ago
Wind doesn’t blow all the time. So while your provider may be buying 100% of your energy consumption in wind energy, you are physically consuming a variety of energy generated at all hours of the day and night.

The existing wind farm doesn’t cost much to run - really just maintenance. But if more people want wind, you’ve got to find a windy place, lease the land rights, order big turbines and blades, build the wind farm, and connect to the grid. That’s is expensive. Then you need to buy energy for when the wind isn’t blowing. With coal plants being removed, nuclear stagnant, not a lot of reliable, firm energy to fill growing demand.

Basically battery storage or geothermal. My money is on geothermal.
zmz2 1 points 18h ago
Even though a wind farm doesn’t need fuel, it still has ongoing costs, and those costs change over time. One example is the lockdowns made it difficult to get replacement parts for everything, so maintenance costs increased. With the large wage gains we’ve seen the last couple of years, labor costs have increased for everything. Interest rates have skyrocketed so the interest on any loans used to build the wind farms has increased.
Potato_Octopi 1 points 18h ago
Assuming they're cost-plus pricing: labor, parts amd distribution costs are up. New / replacement turbines are more costly. Any debt refinancing, or variable rate debt the business has is also more expensive.
redditsucksbigly 1 points 15h ago
The mistake you're making is assuming prices are based solely on input cost. They aren't. They're based on supply and demand. Demand increasing will increase price. Likewise supply from other electricity sources decreasing will also increase price.
ghotiaroma 1 points 14h ago
Companies charge what the market will bear, not what production costs. They charge at least what production costs but never miss an opportunity to make profit.
thesweeterpeter 1 points 18h ago
Speculative because I don't know the specifics of your provider, but if they paid for infrastructure interest has an impact.

Most source generation is constructed via loan, and just like a conventional loan as the interest rate changes the cost of those capital investments which is amortized over users has to change.

This doesn't account for new investment, supply and demand calculation, or if your provider is just a reseller (where their vendor would be subject to a lot of these market conditions as well, and they're passing it onto you).
therealdilbert 1 points 18h ago
effectively your energy supplier is not supplying you with wind energy, they are paying for someone else to use coal/oil/gas instead, so they can say the wind energy supplied to the grid from wind farms is what you get
x31b 1 points 18h ago
Does your electricity work when the wind is still? Does it ever go off for fifteen minutes or so?

If not, then your provider is 100% lying to you about it being 100% wind energy.
Prunus-cerasus 1 points 17h ago
This is not quite so. When a provider sells you wind energy, they agree to deliver to the grid an amount of wind based energy that matches your consumption in a longer period, a month for example. So you (and all the others paying them for wind power) are the one who enables the company to do so when the conditions are right.

Everyone understands that electricity is just agitated electrons and it is impossible to send just the right ones to you.
x31b 1 points 17h ago
Yes. So you are getting 75% wind produced electricity and 25% fossil fuel. Someone else is getting 25% wind (paid by you) to make the total 100%.
Prunus-cerasus 1 points 17h ago
Everyone always gets the same “mix” of whatever kind of power is being produced at a given time. This makes it irrelevant to even think about it.

What is relevant is that you are not funding anything else but wind power. This increases the incentive to keep the current turbines running and to build more. Thus you are making a difference using the market.
rodericj 1 points 17h ago
Don’t batteries exist?
Kozer2 1 points 17h ago
It isn't possibly with current battery tech to store energy like this for a powergrid.

This video kinda talks about how we find other ways to store energy.
rodericj 1 points 16h ago
That’s a video describing a battery. He literally said: “we can use this battery to fill in the gaps when the wind isn’t blowing” right at the end there.

What’s did you mean when you said “It isn’t possible with current battery tech to store energy like this for that powergrid”?
Kozer2 1 points 15h ago
Conventional battles don’t work and there are only specific places on earth that can act like that place in the video

And when I say conventional I mean that they are insanely expensive and drive up the cost and don’t generally have the capacity for large scale grid coverage. It’s very cost prohibitive right now which is why those lake “batteries” are good solution but there are not enough places to cover the grid with those
sQueezedhe 1 points 17h ago
This is amazing.
throwdroptwo 1 points 17h ago
Because maintaining those "green" energy farms cost more money. Its not going to be cheaper because its "free" energy...
ExposingYouLot [OP] 1 points 16h ago
No, that's not what I was asking.

I was asking why the energy prices shot up considerably as a result of the other energy costs rising.
tomalator 1 points 17h ago
First, they need to pay for windmills and to keep them running and to maintain the grid. Secondly, the cost of other energy sources determines the market so they can set their prices based on that. By signing up for this "100% renewable energy" you still get the same power, a larger cut of your money just goes to the renewable sources.
No-swimming-pool 1 points 16h ago
Because wind is expensive to buy when you dont produce it yourself.

The idea that renewable will be cheaper by default is a strange one.
argylekey 1 points 17h ago
North America has electric several grids shared between Canada, and the United States.

I think the one in Europe/Northern Africa/Middle east operates in a very similar fashion(but I’m not sure). It’s called the “European Super Grid”.

Power plants connected to those grids ramp up and down throughout the day production based on usages/predictions of usage(its going to be hot might change how much is planned to be generated in a day). In theory, the coal/natural gas/windmill/solar/other near you creates enough electricity for your area and usually a little bit more to feed into the larger grid. This is to serve areas without dedicated plants, deal with line loss, and shore up plants that either don’t produce enough for their area or compensate for areas that can’t ramp up and down quickly.

Solar and wind can’t ramp up like as fast as natural gas or in the same ways. Or they have been contracted to only produce X amount of energy in a period(which often sucks that they’re limited). If it’s not as windy that day, there isn’t much you can do about it. Hydro electric can allow more water through. Coal can put more coal in. Natural gas plants can burn more gas. Etc.

Energy storage would help mitigate some of these problems(store power when not a ton of people are using it, and release it slowly when they are) but there aren’t very efficient ways to do that yet.

Since power generation is distributed on a grid there has to be a way to normalize what the price of power is. Fossil fuel plants have set the prices for power in the United States because they are incumbents and that is the system that was setup. They made up the rules to benefit themselves. Renewable power generation facilities can see massive profits when energy costs go up, because their costs stay(relatively) the same.

This benefits the renewable companies so there isn’t a big push for changing the status quo of allowing fossil fuel plants to set the market rate.
roylennigan 1 points 15h ago
Energy providers pump electricity supply onto regional grids. The grid is just a combination of all generation sources, so there's no way to sell a consumer "only" wind power. What they can do is ensure that the money you pay goes entirely to providers who are only generating electricity from wind. The overhead of dealing with a separate energy brokerage method demands some kind of premium, usually.

Electric plants of any kind sell electricity by the kilowatt hour to utilities through energy brokers. The energy market sets the price through supply and demand, which changes depending on a lot of factors, including who else is selling on the market, the price of generating from these different sources, consumer demand, etc.

Any large scale effects on global industries can cause price changes for a variety of factors. For instance, covid cause microchip shortage, which affects any industry that requires electronics. The Ukraine/Russia war creates imbalance with energy production, which can cause changes in how people buy energy.
majordingdong 1 points 15h ago
In the EU, renewable energy producers can get a so-called “Guarantee of Origin” that validates that the renewable energy producer has produced 1 MWh of renewable energy.
Think of this guarantee as a certificate.
This certificate can be sold to the company where you buy your electricity, which sells the associated renewable energy to you.

However, this is just for you to proof that you have bought some more climate friendly energy than otherwise.

The “Guarantee of Origin” doesn’t have anything to do with the price of energy.

For your second question:
Energy prices are calculated for each hour, by estimating the demand within a region, then collecting bids from electricity producers and then fulfilling the demand starting from the cheapest source and accepting bids until demand is met.
The price of the last needed accepted bid (to meet demand) sets the price for all accepted bids. This is called marginal pricing.

For some hours (in some regions) demand can be met without accepting bids from electricity producers that use natural gas and some hours it is needed. Electricity made by burning natural gas (and other fossil fuels) is quite expensive compared to other sources. The capacity to produce electricity from natural gas is sometimes still needed to meet demand. So when natural gas is part of the energy mix, it generally sets the price.

This generally makes it fairly lucrative for renewable energy such as wind and solar, since the cost is lower but they get a very high markup when fossil fuel is a part of the mix.

I haven’t heard that COVID did anything to the energy prices. But for the war in Ukraine, the price for natural gas skyrocketed (peaked at over 10x of todays price) mostly due to speculation about the future supply. Lower supply and roughly same demand = higher price.
The speculation about supply was due to Russias geopolitical shenanigans and the lower than usual flow in e.g. the Nord Stream pipeline (from Russia to Germany). The pipeline got blown up, European countries tried to lower the demand and other sources of natural gas was procured.

Negative prices can even occur, which can be due to the terms of some subsidies for renewable energy or just renewable energy not having the capability to turn off when needed, but they still need somebody to use that energy.

So the cost of electricity from wind didn’t change, but because all electricity is traded equally and electricity from natural gas changed, the overall price for electricity was higher.

Extra:
Other things factored in to why electricity prices in Europe were very high in 2022.
A lot of French nuclear reactors and German coal plants were not active for various reasons, which only further limited the supply.
plymdrew 1 points 15h ago
If you're buying electricity in the UK the government has tied all electricity to the price of electricity generated by burning gas... All other follows suit meaning that the companies selling Nuclear and Wind generate electricity etc have had a massive windfall at our expense.
p3t3y5 1 points 14h ago
Just to say on this as well....this was brought in when gas was more expensive to burn in large scale power stations than the cost of its competitors meaning that no companies would run gas powered power stations. This left the UK quite vulnerable. They did this to increase our capacity and it was actually quite a clever idea. Problem was that as soon as we did this we became over reliant on gas as it became relatively cheap with all the pipelines etc. Not that one of the largest gas supplies has become unavailable we are really feeling the pain. Not all electricity selling companies are making a killing, it has actually been a really difficult time for a lot of these companies. Not all companies that you buy electricity from actually generate electricity, some just resell and these ones have taking an absolute kicking as they have garunteed customers rates further out than they had secured supply and when the price went up they went bust.
dowdzyyy 1 points 14h ago
Worked for a big 6 Energy company in the UK, so to put it simply like others have said they buy from the National Grid, the thing is no matter how the energy was made it all goes into the same 'powerbank' (like the phone charger ones).

This powerbank is used by us all and now less people are 'charging' it, Energy companies pay in a way that's called hedging so they pay for a quarter of a year's energy at a time and basically have to buy more than they think they will need so they take this into account too (if everyone had a smart meter they could buy more accurately, this is the real benefit of them and why they push them so much, they don't want to waste money).

Due to world events and the price increasing they have paid more than they normally would and they aren't going to use the shareholders bonuses to help the customers so they increased what we pay by alot.

It's basically that simple they aren't going to stop producing record profits for the sake of us, profit is after they have paid wages/for the energy they are selling to us and while we are all struggling to pay they are making more money than ever before, it is literally profiteering at the misfortune of the common folk.

A big American Oil company made more in one recent year than a person would if they got paid 40,000 every single day since the day Jesus was born up until now, this is an unimaginable amount of money that just 1 company made, the other companies are not going to just ignore this.

The energy you actually use in your home could have come from anywhere but the grid took the same amount from 'renewable' sources, what the company gets is just Energy.

Your standing charge is increasing because the smaller companies are going bankrupt, when this happens depending on the area those customers are just given to other companies and even though this essentially is more free money for them, they aren't going to do the administration for free and that's why that has increased simply because they now have more customers to give them money, they won't employ more people to speak to these customers though and that's why wait times are longer now too.

Our company for months asked that we apologize at the beginning of every call for the wait time we spoke to someone, I asked multiple times why we should do this instead of employing more staff and was basically told people like being apologized to and that it will sort itself out, after months of not doing this and getting told off by higher-ups for not doing it (why apologize to stop people complaining about something they should actually fix) I just couldn't do it anymore.

Before the world event we could give people quite alot of money for complaints/problems/issues and stuff like that, basically saying here's some money are we okay now?, This completely stopped and we couldn't even give someone £5 to get them off the call without a managers approval, ended up with 5x more complaints open and 10x more emails that we were expected to deal with while being on the phone constantly you end one call and another one comes instantly, our bonus criteria wasn't being met so we were being paid less for more work and the company wasn't doing anything about it, as bad as it sounds we praised when systems broke due to the workload and we got some time off work but then you'd get an 80 year old widow who's terrified and hasn't put the heating on for weeks crying it's just fucked and they don't care about us.
p3t3y5 1 points 14h ago
You missed the bit about all electricity being sold in the UK is tied to the price.of gas generation as well which has been a significant driver in the price consumers.pay.
dowdzyyy 1 points 13h ago
Thanks for adding that mate, went on abit of a rant!

Honestly used to love the job, gave anyone who deserved it a nice 'gesture of good will', cleared people's debt when I could see they weren't just trying to fleece us helped an unknown amount of single parents struggling to survive single men and women trying to make ends meet.

It's so fucked they took everything from us, I was more experienced and knowledgeable than my snowflake 12 year old manager typical "think of the company" type, our company was huge and has been around since the start, I got to see the breakdowns in costs in detail and they are just scamming us, they are legally allowed to charge a percentage on top of everything (cost of energy/admin/profit/surplus) just to top themselves off a little more too.
GazBB 1 points 14h ago
Energy providers are not necessarily energy generators. Your energy provider buys electricity from many energy generators and delivers it to you and other consumers.

Simplest way to explain why the prices vary goes like this. Imagine that you are using very little electricity. Now your energy provider has a bunch of generators willing to sell you electricity which drives the price lower.

Why?

Because renewable energy generation is extremely hard to control. You can control turning a turbine on or off but you cannot control the amount of wind acting on a turbine. If generators generate a lot of electricity, it has to be consumed. They can't just let it go into the air.

Now, imagine you need a lot of energy because you're running a lot of appliances. Since there's limited generation, the more you consume, the more pricing power the generators get. This drives the price of electricity up a lot.
SkarbOna 1 points 14h ago
Companies still pay same wages to all these corpo folks who work 9-5. Infrastructure is also kept by specialist that also want to match inflation rates.
Morton_1874 1 points 13h ago
In the UK energy generation from wind or other renewables cannot be sold at a lower price than the wholesale gas price . It's a Government/Gas/Oil scam to ensure fossil fuels can cash in for as long as possible
template009 1 points 13h ago
Because someone else is getting rich and it ain't you! But you are subsidizing the new energy billionaire's!

Feeling like a sucker yet?
kawhi_2020 1 points 13h ago
Energy prices aren't constant. If you are on a fixed rate retail price, then they seem constant, but the wholesale price is always changing.

In quite a few areas, there are markets for electricity where you can purchase at the wholesale price rather than a fixed retail rate, so it will fluctuate. You may be on such a plan. The risk there is that if the wholesale price spikes (like it did in the big Texas freeze), then you're on the hook for that.

Prices go up when demand is up and more supply is needed. All utilities that deliver power to you are constantly buying and selling from each other.
CleaveIshallnot 1 points 13h ago
Because you couldn't afford or were just to lazy to install the wind turbine on your own, and thus relied on someone else to do it who could afford to.

Therefore, now you must pay. ... & pay... & pay
BigMax 1 points 13h ago
Well, there's other market demand reasons people talk about which are explained better than I can.

But also, wind has *some* costs. Ongoing maintenance and repair of the windmills and all that are still subject to market demand. Labor costs, parts, etc.

And my best guess is that the cost is there to fund adding new windmills too, which aren't cheap, and those are probably going up in cost as well.
TommyTuttle 1 points 12h ago
If you get your energy from the grid, then their cost of production doesn’t matter. They produce cheap electricity and sell it on the grid for whatever they can get. The cost to you has to be more than what they could otherwise sell it for on the grid.
Knave7575 1 points 12h ago
Every form of energy has costs:

1) fuel
2) cost to build
3) cost to maintain

Some forms of energy have an extra cost:

4) cost to create and maintain backup energy source if main source is unavailable.

For oil, fuel costs are high, but it is dependable and pretty cheap to build. Nuclear has cheap fuel costs and is dependable, but has a high cost to build. Hydro is even better than nuclear, since fuel costs are effectively zero, and it is still dependable.

Wind also has no fuel costs, but the cost to build is high (each windmill produces a small fraction of what nuclear can produce) and, even worse, wind needs “backup power” on standby (often in the form of gas or oil) for when the wind is not blowing. The cost of the backups is part of the cost of wind power.
AUT1GER 1 points 11h ago
Wind produces the most energy at night when there is very low demand for power, so it is harder for your energy producer to recoup the costs of building the wind farms and transmitting the power.

It is like Kristoff in Frozen selling ice during the winter storm. There isn't a demand for power/ice at night/winter storm, but it still costs money to produce and transmit power to a market that doesn't need it.

Energy prices are going up for a lot of reasons. Coal plants are shutting down and the energy that they produce needs to be replaced. People want renewables, and maybe rightly so, but coal plants could produce power on demand. Renewables do not. If you want reliability, renewables are not at a point where that can happen. So coal plants are shutting down and companies are building renewables, but there is still a need to provide power on demand and during peak times, power companies are investing in ways to balance the power and keep reliability but it all costs money to transition.
cyberentomology 1 points 10h ago
Because the cost of labor has gone up and the dirty little secret of “renewables” is that a much larger portion of the cost of production is labor.
dragonfett 1 points 10h ago
Wind farms require maintenance, which requires skilled professionals being paid to maintain it. This means in order to retain said professionals, they have to give them a raise so they can maintain their lifestyle, or run the risk that their employees will find work with another company willing to pay them what they are worth. Furthermore, maintaining equipment involves buying parts to replace ones that wear out, the price of which will increase, as does the cost of having parts delivered.
jmlinden7 1 points 10h ago
Yes wind farms can produce a lot of electricity cheaply, but if the demand for that electricity outweighs the supply, then the prices will keep going up until demand shrinks to match supply. Things are not priced based on how much they cost to produce, they are priced based on supply and demand.
theAdmyrle 1 points 10h ago
ELI5 - you got scammed.
You got swindled by an energy reseller and you will end up paying more. They are preying on your social values - you get the same electricity as all of us, you’re just opting in to pay more to subsidize the rest of us. You may pay less on year 1, but by year 5, you’re paying more.

Never. Ever. Engage. With. An. Energy. Reseller. Unless. You. Plan. To. Scam. Them. Back. With. Rapid. Turnover.
kapege 1 points 8h ago
It should become cheaper, because wind (and sun for solar) are free sources. You don't have to constantly buy oil and gas anymore. The only costs are the initial investment and the maintenance. The higher the demand of clean energy, the higher are the investment costs, because new wind turbines has to be build. That costs have to be paid by the consumers. During the pandemic lot's of businesses were shortened and therefore also all the prices around wind energy rose, too.
Walty_C 1 points 8h ago
The wind doesn’t just shoot energy into the grid. Windmills cost money to service and upkeep. If the price of everything else is going up. That will too.
defender5371 1 points 8h ago
The true ELI5 answer is that while the wind might be plentiful, you try making electricity out of it. You buy electricity from someone and if their costs go up, so do yours
Anonymous_Bozo 1 points 7h ago
Generation Costs:

|Type|Generation Cost / kwh||
|:-|:-|:-|
|Solar|$0.1000||
|Wind|$0.0500||
|Coal|$0.0850||
|Nuclear|$0.0960||
|Natural Gas|$0.0320||
|Hydro Electric|$0.0085||

Then add transmission, admin costs etc.... Wind and Solar are 5 to 10 times more expensive as hydro.

Some of the reason is new tech requires new infrastructure, while Hydro, Coal, Gas, and Nuclear use existing infradtructure.
micreadsit 1 points 4h ago
I didn't fact check your numbers, but either way, your hydro numbers assume that ruining a river is the prerogative of whoever wants to make money from the hydropower. Not to mention that hydropower requires that somehow the water shows up in the high elevation location (ie it rains) (God does it?) (see also climate change). Not to mention increased evaporation. Which means that basically what you have is what you get and there is no way to increase it. Only a way to use it up by ruining ever river on the planet.
[deleted] 1 points 4h ago
[removed]
[deleted] 1 points 44m ago
[removed]
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1 points 18m ago
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**

Rule #1 of ELI5 is to *be civil*. Users are expected to engage cordially with others on the sub, even if that user is not doing the same. Report instances of Rule 1 violations instead of engaging.

Breaking rule 1 is not tolerated.

---

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please use this form and we will review your submission.
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1 points 18m ago
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**

Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.

Off-topic discussion is not allowed at the top level at all, and discouraged elsewhere in the thread.

---

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please use this form and we will review your submission.
[deleted] 1 points 21m ago
[removed]
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam 1 points 19m ago
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**

Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.

Joke only comments, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

---

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please use this form and we will review your submission.
sacoPT 1 points 11m ago
Didn’t read all the comments but I think people are forgetting that that is just how the free market works. Prices don’t go up (just) because costs go up. Prices go up because demand is high enough and/or supply is low enough for people to keep buying.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc   •   HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.