Electricity of democracy
was believed that we would keep a 'mix' balanced across all technologies. But the world has changed and the question is whether we can risk the future of the planet for not spending time in the appropriate energy
EMILIO TRIGUEROS
The year 2011 began with events that may forever change our view the world and our decisions about how to generate the electricity that our society needs daily. These events will shape our responses to the key question of what powers we want produce our electricity today, and what investments will undertake to produce the electricity of tomorrow. The issue is not only what technologies we choose, is also what channels have a democratic country so that these decisions respond to a public debate intelligible.
dictators Oil generates ready to buy weapons for the military control of their country. Fukushima
has highlighted the failure of the nuclear power plant safety.
has long since we were facing a serious problem: all power sources have serious problems. In Spain, practically exhausted hydraulics its sites, after more than a century to build reservoirs, coal increases CO2 emissions, when the European Union to reduce forces, the natural gas is expensive, because its price is linked to oil, nuclear plants do not offer clear solutions waste and finance investments in new plants pharaonic is difficult renewables are developing technologies, even faces. A decision about the "generation mix" should weigh these issues, by the way who makes that decision? "Political, technical, business? "In public forums or in offices?
Perhaps there is a more practical question: how has done so far? Well, the English generation fleet has historically been determined by a combination of large private investment and government planning. This is not better or worse than other options (in the U.S. there are many private power is limited in size, in France or Italy there is a great power with majority public). But the fact that investments are made by large private companies adds two complications: that these companies get more profit selling more energy, and that, as in the DNA of the private company set to maximize profits short, the length of them is a therefore alien. In society
the hyper, there is a continuing debate on energy and politics, but often oversimplified, the communication offices of companies and associations struggle with articles for and against each alternative, which brings more contradictions reading global ratings.
However, despite these constraints, the fact is that the electrical system works. How it works Every day, all English production plants operating in the market sent to a central operator what price they are willing to produce the next day, the operator orders the bids for its price and sum the total amount of electricity supplied at each price; después, anuncia a qué "precio de corte" entrarían a producir suficientes plantas para casar con la demanda nacional de electricidad. Ese nivel de corte pasa a ser el precio de mercado; las plantas que habían ofertado menos entrarán en producción; las que hubieran cotizado más alto, quedarán paradas. Este mecanismo encierra algo fundamental: marca precio de mercado la planta más cara; todas las plantas que produzcan ingresarán ese precio, aunque hubieran hecho ofertas inferiores, según sus costes menores.
Cuando se diseñó este sistema, a finales de los noventa, se pensaba que el precio de mercado sería menor de lo que recibían las centrales antiguas con la regulación anterior; therefore, be assured those who would enter up to 36 euros / MWh with a separate payment if the market price was lower. Nobody expected what happened then: that fossil fuels have soared since 2004, and the market price rather than lose those 36 euros / MWh guaranteed to the old investment soared, according to the most expensive fuel plants ( was 64 euros / MWh in 2008, to 73 euros / MWh for most). And when the market price set by the plant more expensive, fire, old plants were bagged unexpected perks, a precise quantification of the impact of this effect (much discussed: the President of the Commission National Competition [CNC] held that "involves filling the pockets of power to the detriment of the price we pay people," while power from the employer is considered that its importance has been exaggerated) go beyond the purpose of this article.
Citizens, of course, we are not immediately sent soaring rate that would have meant the new price situation, so we owe a debt to the power that reaches about 20,000 million euros.
Moreover, it should be noted that English governments have been separated from the pure "market appeal as" some powers that sought to promote such as wind and solar, whose revenues are set at a fixed price that allows them to recoup their investment (about 78 euros / MWh in the wind).
In comparison, how much we pay in our homes? For about 200 euros / MWh in a recent bill, of which about 60 euros / MWh are the party who pays for the generation of electricity according to market (the rest of the price for the transmission of electricity, plus adjustments and tax). Compare those 60 euros / MWh to 36 euros / MWh original reference to old plants and 78 euros / MWh wind receiving suggests we have a reasonable range to decide which technologies to promote and how to pay, without altering the rebalancing substantially the final price. In other words, that the technology and the economy should not cancel the policy.
Whither go a global solution? For a long time, many have thought, if only by inertia, which should remain a balanced mix of all technologies (that of "not putting all your eggs in one basket"), after all, if the citizen this should not of interest to both, why not let it follow the historical compromise between companies and governments, and nothing will change much?
happens that things are changing so much that maybe citizens, businesses and governments have to abandon our inertia.
Because in the beginning of 2011 just be very clear two things: one, that produces oil dictators, oil-rich, ready to buy weapons for the military control of the country, leading to suffocation or war in their societies. And the resulting instability, as well as challenge us morally, anticipates a world of expensive oil: Historically, in countries where there have been revolutions (Iran, 1979) and war (Iraq, 2003), the production has never returned to the original level. If this instability, the Asian development are added and the control of OPEC, it seems very likely an expensive traditional energy future, making it more attractive new possibilities.
And the second thing is clear: nuclear technology, which advocated a host of experts, praising its high security, has failed miserably (to a natural disaster, it is true, but miserably). Each chain is broken by the weakest link: a failure of emergency diesel generators, flooded by the tsunami, put nuclear reactors in Fukushima out of control.
A third issue that for years was clear: the industrialization of the planet has strongly altered the climate balance and it is clear that we do not know where that change brings. Knowing that we do not know, does it make sense to risk irreversibly altering the planet, not have spent time in the right technologies, confused by the overall sound and fury? Does it make sense that when we know, or know our children, we lost 20 or 30 years will cost much more back than it would win now? It is difficult to decant
findings and reach a final answer to suggest a way. Perhaps the problem is that a consumption-oriented economy has impoverished our ability to discuss collective issues. But it is not so hopeless: we have intelligent politicians, good journalists, skilled managers, citizens greatly encouraged by the historical period they live. We could apply all our energy to speak out, very clear, without slogans occasion, compares the network, by all means, on the issues all together. Emilio
Trigueros is industrial chemical and energy markets specialist.
was believed that we would keep a 'mix' balanced across all technologies. But the world has changed and the question is whether we can risk the future of the planet for not spending time in the appropriate energy
EMILIO TRIGUEROS
The year 2011 began with events that may forever change our view the world and our decisions about how to generate the electricity that our society needs daily. These events will shape our responses to the key question of what powers we want produce our electricity today, and what investments will undertake to produce the electricity of tomorrow. The issue is not only what technologies we choose, is also what channels have a democratic country so that these decisions respond to a public debate intelligible.
dictators Oil generates ready to buy weapons for the military control of their country. Fukushima
has highlighted the failure of the nuclear power plant safety.
has long since we were facing a serious problem: all power sources have serious problems. In Spain, practically exhausted hydraulics its sites, after more than a century to build reservoirs, coal increases CO2 emissions, when the European Union to reduce forces, the natural gas is expensive, because its price is linked to oil, nuclear plants do not offer clear solutions waste and finance investments in new plants pharaonic is difficult renewables are developing technologies, even faces. A decision about the "generation mix" should weigh these issues, by the way who makes that decision? "Political, technical, business? "In public forums or in offices?
Perhaps there is a more practical question: how has done so far? Well, the English generation fleet has historically been determined by a combination of large private investment and government planning. This is not better or worse than other options (in the U.S. there are many private power is limited in size, in France or Italy there is a great power with majority public). But the fact that investments are made by large private companies adds two complications: that these companies get more profit selling more energy, and that, as in the DNA of the private company set to maximize profits short, the length of them is a therefore alien. In society
the hyper, there is a continuing debate on energy and politics, but often oversimplified, the communication offices of companies and associations struggle with articles for and against each alternative, which brings more contradictions reading global ratings.
However, despite these constraints, the fact is that the electrical system works. How it works Every day, all English production plants operating in the market sent to a central operator what price they are willing to produce the next day, the operator orders the bids for its price and sum the total amount of electricity supplied at each price; después, anuncia a qué "precio de corte" entrarían a producir suficientes plantas para casar con la demanda nacional de electricidad. Ese nivel de corte pasa a ser el precio de mercado; las plantas que habían ofertado menos entrarán en producción; las que hubieran cotizado más alto, quedarán paradas. Este mecanismo encierra algo fundamental: marca precio de mercado la planta más cara; todas las plantas que produzcan ingresarán ese precio, aunque hubieran hecho ofertas inferiores, según sus costes menores.
Cuando se diseñó este sistema, a finales de los noventa, se pensaba que el precio de mercado sería menor de lo que recibían las centrales antiguas con la regulación anterior; therefore, be assured those who would enter up to 36 euros / MWh with a separate payment if the market price was lower. Nobody expected what happened then: that fossil fuels have soared since 2004, and the market price rather than lose those 36 euros / MWh guaranteed to the old investment soared, according to the most expensive fuel plants ( was 64 euros / MWh in 2008, to 73 euros / MWh for most). And when the market price set by the plant more expensive, fire, old plants were bagged unexpected perks, a precise quantification of the impact of this effect (much discussed: the President of the Commission National Competition [CNC] held that "involves filling the pockets of power to the detriment of the price we pay people," while power from the employer is considered that its importance has been exaggerated) go beyond the purpose of this article.
Citizens, of course, we are not immediately sent soaring rate that would have meant the new price situation, so we owe a debt to the power that reaches about 20,000 million euros.
Moreover, it should be noted that English governments have been separated from the pure "market appeal as" some powers that sought to promote such as wind and solar, whose revenues are set at a fixed price that allows them to recoup their investment (about 78 euros / MWh in the wind).
In comparison, how much we pay in our homes? For about 200 euros / MWh in a recent bill, of which about 60 euros / MWh are the party who pays for the generation of electricity according to market (the rest of the price for the transmission of electricity, plus adjustments and tax). Compare those 60 euros / MWh to 36 euros / MWh original reference to old plants and 78 euros / MWh wind receiving suggests we have a reasonable range to decide which technologies to promote and how to pay, without altering the rebalancing substantially the final price. In other words, that the technology and the economy should not cancel the policy.
Whither go a global solution? For a long time, many have thought, if only by inertia, which should remain a balanced mix of all technologies (that of "not putting all your eggs in one basket"), after all, if the citizen this should not of interest to both, why not let it follow the historical compromise between companies and governments, and nothing will change much?
happens that things are changing so much that maybe citizens, businesses and governments have to abandon our inertia.
Because in the beginning of 2011 just be very clear two things: one, that produces oil dictators, oil-rich, ready to buy weapons for the military control of the country, leading to suffocation or war in their societies. And the resulting instability, as well as challenge us morally, anticipates a world of expensive oil: Historically, in countries where there have been revolutions (Iran, 1979) and war (Iraq, 2003), the production has never returned to the original level. If this instability, the Asian development are added and the control of OPEC, it seems very likely an expensive traditional energy future, making it more attractive new possibilities.
And the second thing is clear: nuclear technology, which advocated a host of experts, praising its high security, has failed miserably (to a natural disaster, it is true, but miserably). Each chain is broken by the weakest link: a failure of emergency diesel generators, flooded by the tsunami, put nuclear reactors in Fukushima out of control.
A third issue that for years was clear: the industrialization of the planet has strongly altered the climate balance and it is clear that we do not know where that change brings. Knowing that we do not know, does it make sense to risk irreversibly altering the planet, not have spent time in the right technologies, confused by the overall sound and fury? Does it make sense that when we know, or know our children, we lost 20 or 30 years will cost much more back than it would win now? It is difficult to decant
findings and reach a final answer to suggest a way. Perhaps the problem is that a consumption-oriented economy has impoverished our ability to discuss collective issues. But it is not so hopeless: we have intelligent politicians, good journalists, skilled managers, citizens greatly encouraged by the historical period they live. We could apply all our energy to speak out, very clear, without slogans occasion, compares the network, by all means, on the issues all together. Emilio
Trigueros is industrial chemical and energy markets specialist.
0 comments:
Post a Comment