Energy Poverty in Australia: COVID Lockdowns Drove Costs Up 50%

[jim mcnamara]

Article: https://phys.org/news/2021-01-covid-lockdowns-drove-older-australians.html --
Older Australians are having problems with energy poverty. Because COVID has forced them to stay at home and inside, heating and mostly cooling costs have increased by as much as 50%. Instead of going to senior centers during the day, they stay home running air conditioning.
This article is not very rigorous, seems more into anecdotes - FWIW

The average Kwh in Australia was AUS$0.3025 per kWh (2019); currently it is A$0.28 (2020)
from: https://www.leadingedgeenergy.com.au/news/cost-of-electricity-in-australia-in-2020/

The average Kwh for 2019 in the US is: US$0.1319 (AUS$0.1714), for comparison.
-- from https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

Apparently, Australia led the world in Kwh cost for 2019. They improved in 2020.

The part I do not get comes from the Kwh prices table in the second article. Versus the US cost.
The US seems to be an anomaly. Maybe I misunderstand. Plus, the authors seem to have overlooked the US cost in the comparison. I would assume to make the Australian price look better.

Why has Australia been so relatively expensive on average? Or maybe I have it backwards - something is odd in the US.

@bhobba or @anorlunda probably know more...

 

[bhobba]

Why has Australia been so relatively expensive on average?

Australia once did lead the world with low energy costs, because of our huge coal reserves and use of coal power stations. But not for awhile now and certainly not last year, or this year. Because, due to pressure by advocacy groups, cheap coal power stations are being replaced with, at least at the moment, more expensive renewable sources and associated government subsidies to 'incentivise' companies to do it. It of course in the end must be paid for by the consumer so prices go up. There is also the trend to privatise power generation that was supposed to reduce prices by competition, but didn't. It simply added another layer that wanted to make profits, understandably. Governments have taken action on that by having its own energy company to keep the others honest, but it is still a more expensive model.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

@bhobba is correct, AU self-inflicted a crisis by mismanaging their energy policies. It was not just a crisis in cost, it threatened the reliability of the grid in South Australia.

But it is not just AU, the prices are also high in Europe and in California.

Also compare to US states and you see a wide range, but none as high as Australia.

But it can be more meaningful to express it as a % of household income. In this measure, the USA is also low, compared to other countries. Note that the US numbers are for all energy, not just electric. Non-electric home heating is still a big part of some home energy bills.

In Australia https://www.canstarblue.com.au/electricity/average-electricity-bills/
Be careful comparing, US numbers were for all energy, the AU numbers for just electricity.

Some schemes for 100% renewables would raise the budget percentage for household energy substantially. Advocates of clean energy often say, "just a few pennies more." Well, that is a gross understatement.

The future costs of being "green" may be very expensive and very painful. That is why so many of us say that energy prices are political, not technical. It is really impossible to discuss this topic sans politics. IMO US consumers are very sensitive to the prices of electricity and gasoline, and stand ready to lynch any politician who promotes higher prices. A few states are exceptions to that rule.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Is it necessarily true clean energy is the sole cause? Overall, Australia generates a much lower share of its electricity from low-carbon sources than the US, despite electricity being much cheaper in the US. Maybe some of the high costs result from how Australia is implementing its transition to electricity sources with low CO2 emissions, but the data don't seem to suggest that simply having more electricity generation from low-carbon sources directly causes high energy prices.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...ime=earliest..latest&country=OWID_WRL~AUS~USA

While most of this difference in low-carbon electricity generation is mostly from nuclear power generation, the share of electricity generated from renewables does not seem to support the hypothesis that renewable energy is solely behind the higher electricity costs in Australia. Australia generates a slightly higher share of its electricity from renewables than the US, but this difference doesn't seem large enough to explain the differences in electricity costs:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...ime=earliest..latest&country=OWID_WRL~USA~AUS

 

[bhobba]

Maybe some of the high costs result from how Australia is implementing its transition to electricity sources with low CO2 emissions,

For political reasons there is a how it is being done factor. For example, in one election the then government wanted shore up its green credentials so it gave a massive 40c KwH rebate for energy fed back from solar panels into the grid. Those that took advantage of the scheme, and there was a lot, got HUGE refunds from their electricity companies rather than bills, while everyone else's bills went up to pay for it. It didn't work - the government was not re-elected. The first thing the new government did was a study on what it was really worth - it turned out to be about 4 cents so that was stopped. But there were existing contracts at 40 cents that had to be paid and the rest of the consumers continue to pay it. That is not the only example of this kind of mismanagement.

Thanks
Bill

 

[anorlunda]

Is it necessarily true clean energy is the sole cause?

No. As I said in #3 it is mismanagement IMO. Or you could say mismanagement of the clean energy transition, but not necessarily the clean energy per se. Unfortunately, even the best of ideas can be bungled.

The province of Ontario, Canada is another region suffering from mismanagement of their electric power industry. Their energy mix is very different than Australia's, but their troubles are very similar.

 

[bhobba]

Their energy mix is very different than Australia's, but their troubles are very similar.

Many issues with clashes of various worldviews, such as those about transitioning to clean energy, are really disguised debates about ineptitude, either deliberately, or by mistake. The example I often give is ask people if the government should do something about global warming and you get a resounding yes. Ask them how much more are they willing to pay in increased electricity prices, and you get a different answer depending on the demographic. In lower socio economic demographics you get none - it should be cut - we are paying too much already - it has risen ridiculously over the years as it is. Ask someone from a well to do socio economic background, and this has actually been done - you get about 25%. Now here in Aus during the last election the opposition was a shoe in, all the polls showed a resounding victory. They had very ambitious emissions targets - but it was all just motherhood statements, because no actual costings had been done. One day a journalist asked where are the costings to the opposition leader. He tried in a typical politicians way to divert, take another question, basically to squirm out of it because he knew if answered truthfully it was dynamite. But, correctly, the journalist would not let the issue go. The politician was made to look a fool. I knew then, despite the polls they were gone - they would not get in. The average person will not give any government carte-blanche to spend their money. And sure enough - they, to everyone's surprise (not me) lost. There is a right way and a wrong way to transition to renewables or in general make change. Not having at least high level costings is the wrong way - people will not vote for it. The current government is not making the same mistake - they have a plan with high level costs, using an integrated system of renewables and gas fired power stations:
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/gas-fired-recovery

Note that natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less greenhouse gasses when combusted in new efficient natural generators compared with a coal plant. And simple cycle plants are able to dispatch faster than coal-fired or nuclear. This means they can be turned on faster when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow ie when renewables do not produce enough power. Some like it, some do not. Me - I don't really care - the point is at least high level costs have been done - those that are against it need to produce costings of their own or it will simply go glug glug with the electorate.

Thanks
Bill

 

[BWV]

wind and solar are now cheaper than coal, (and the need to reduce CO2 emissions is real)so the issue is more complex than the tirades against renewables above.

Aus had an overcapacity of aging coal plants that has now become insufficient for demand - the old cheap electricity was not sustainable as producers were losing money

the large distances increase grid cost

According to the new Climate Council report, End of the Line: Coal in Australia, there were almost 100 breakdowns at fossil fuel power stations over a seven-month period ending in June 2018.

Furthermore, by 2020, over half of the coal power stations in Australia will be over 30 years old. It comes as no surprise the older they get, the more unreliable and expensive to operate.

Unfortunately, Australia has failed to build enough new generation to replenish the retirement of the current coal plants.

Another large expense contributing to our energy bill is the costs of poles and wires to provide a reliable delivery of energy.

Australia is a large country, and therefore has one of the longest (and most pricey) electricity networks in the world. Keeping poles and wires well maintained to move electricity around the nation is very expensive, and can make up half of our power bills.

The third contributor is the retail margin. This covers the costs of the electricity companies’ administration, marketing and other services.

Numerous studies have pointed the finger at retail margins for becoming one of the biggest causes for current price rises. In fact, a 2017 study on electricity prices conducted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission discovered the costs associated with electricity companies accounted for a quarter of the average residential energy bill.

https://electricityandgas.com.au/blog/why-is-electricity-so-expensive-in-australia/

 

[BWV]

Texas BTW is 22% wind and solar and its grid is completely self-contained, and has a comparable population. Kansas now is nearly 50% wind and solar. Cheap natural gas from fracking certainly helps with the low prices. The key to renewable growth in the US has been strong demand from large institutional investors for the steady, bond-like cash flow provided by utility-scale wind and solar assets

 

[anorlunda]

the issue is more complex than the tirades against renewables above.

Read it again. There are no tirades against renewables in this thread. There is criticism of the handling of transitions by authorities. In other words, some complexities that you think are missing from this discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

wind and solar are now cheaper than coal, (and the need to reduce CO2 emissions is real)so the issue is more complex...

That issue is far more complex than you are making it out to be as well. It may or may not be true, depending on many factors and methods of calculating/comparing costs.

 

[BWV]

That issue is far more complex than you are making it out to be as well. It may or may not be true, depending on many factors and methods of calculating/comparing costs.

So what method other than LCOE should be used?

Here is China BTW, where coal plants can be easily built without the scrubbers and other environmental controls a Western country would require, showing a breakeven with Wind & Utility PV (in a less sunny locale than AU) a couple of years away.

https://www.woodmac.com/our-expertise/focus/Power--Renewables/china-renewables-lcoe/

 

[russ_watters]

So what method other than LCOE should be used?

There isn't just one answer to that, and that's kinda my point. LCOE is used most frequently in the media and discussions like this because it is simple/easy to consume and (cynically) because its limitations favor the message people want to send when they cite it. It is especially poor when describing wind and solar (intermittent sources) because it doesn't account for the practical and cost impacts of intermittency.

E.G., you can't just shut down a base-load coal plant and replace its kWh with wind or solar because the kWh are produced at different times. What happens in reality if you try is that sources that can vary on demand (mostly natural gas) increase their output when its not sunny/windy and decrease their output when it is sunny/windy. And if the load and capacity don't align anymore, then a new natural gas plant has to be installed to make-up the difference. LCOE ignores this problem, and it's an expensive problem.

That is the explanation for peoples' confusion about why solar and wind don't dominate new plant construction. If renewables are cheaper than natural gas, we should only be building renewables, not 2/3 natural gas. Much of reason we are mostly building gas is because of the intermittency problem.

To put a simplistic but finer point on it: every solar plant should include an equal capacity natural gas plant built right next to it and for the purpose of LCOE, they should be called one plant. Right now it is easy to pretend we don't have to do that, but if battery storage ever takes off, it will be harder to pretend that "that" giant battery wasn't installed because of a solar plant.

Here's an example of some alternatives measures, focusing most on "system value", when it comes to wind:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75657.pdf

Discussion of the limitations of LCOE:
https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/in...s-and-misuses-levelized-cost-electricity-lcoe

 

[anorlunda]

I second @russ_watters . You will never find a single parameter, or even a chapter of a book that captures the necessary complexity. A full textbook would be closer. A master's degree in energy markets would be about right.

So what do we do when the details are too hairy for meaningful public debate? Something where the Internet won't help?

The only thing left is to choose someone to trust. That makes it political.

 

[BWV]

There isn't just one answer to that, and that's kinda my point. LCOE is used most frequently in the media and discussions like this because it is simple/easy to consume and (cynically) because its limitations favor the message people want to send when they cite it. It is especially poor when describing wind and solar (intermittent sources) because it doesn't account for the practical and cost impacts of intermittency.

E.G., you can't just shut down a base-load coal plant and replace its kWh with wind or solar because the kWh are produced at different times. What happens in reality if you try is that sources that can vary on demand (mostly natural gas) increase their output when its not sunny/windy and decrease their output when it is sunny/windy. And if the load and capacity don't align anymore, then a new natural gas plant has to be installed to make-up the difference. LCOE ignores this problem, and it's an expensive problem.

Do you not think industry understands these issues? Private businesses develop most of the new renewables in the US, not mandates by politicians, so presumably they receive proper attention. Kansas is nearly 50% solar and wind and works just fine, the completely isolated Texas grid is over 20%. Intermittency is an engineering problem that can be solved

That is the explanation for peoples' confusion about why solar and wind don't dominate new plant construction. If renewables are cheaper than natural gas, we should only be building renewables, not 2/3 natural gas. Much of reason we are mostly building gas is because of the intermittency problem.

But renewables do dominate new construction: nat gas is only 16% of new capacity additions planned for this year:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416

To put a simplistic but finer point on it: every solar plant should include an equal capacity natural gas plant built right next to it and for the purpose of LCOE, they should be called one plant. Right now it is easy to pretend we don't have to do that, but if battery storage ever takes off, it will be harder to pretend that "that" giant battery wasn't installed because of a solar plant.

So are we doing it wrong? Per the EIA above, 27.6GW of wind and solar is getting built this year compared to 6.6GW of nat gas

Here's an example of some alternatives measures, focusing most on "system value", when it comes to wind:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75657.pdf

Discussion of the limitations of LCOE:
https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/08/in...s-and-misuses-levelized-cost-electricity-lcoe

Again, you seem to imply that either that the industry either does not understand this, are subject to executing irrational political mandates, or able to impose expensive externalities on the grid without recourse. I fail to see evidence for any of this. In the US, for the most part it is private enterprise building renewables, not government mandates. Maybe there is some sort of externality imposed on the grid by a marginal solar or wind project, but we have yet to see significant problems in states now approaching 50% wind and solar.

Sure per the articles, yes - any single metric has limits and LCOE may have serious limitations. The articles you linked show that the industry well understands the limitations of LCOE and is capable of making intelligent decisions on adding new power capacity.

Ultimately the growth in wind and solar has come from bottom-up economics. Large investors like the bond-like cash flows from renewables and its politically attractive to check the green box.

On the other side of LCOE are the uncounted costs of coal and natural gas. Natural gas requires a pipeline infrastructure and extraction industry, that is largely built, but needs to be maintained. Cheap natural gas benefited consumers, but the industry performed poorly so it may not be sustainable. Same with the transportation infrastructure and extraction industry around coal. Not to mention the potential costs of continued CO2 emissions.

 

[BWV]

I second @russ_watters . You will never find a single parameter, or even a chapter of a book that captures the necessary complexity. A full textbook would be closer. A master's degree in energy markets would be about right.

So what do we do when the details are too hairy for meaningful public debate? Something where the Internet won't help?

The only thing left is to choose someone to trust. That makes it political.

Fortunately, we rely on capitalism, not public debate. Do we have a public debate about what construction methods and materials to use on new freeway overpasses? No, we just set up regulatory agencies with qualified professionals to set standards - same with power. If you went with the consensus here over the years, we would invest 10% of GDP in researching fusion while we replaced all our coal and gas plants with nuclear ;) Fortunately while all this debate is happening, massive construction of wind and solar is underway.

 

[anorlunda]

Fortunately, we rely on capitalism, not public debate.

Then it's time to end this thread.

 

[Rive]

Fortunately, we rely on capitalism...

Unfortunately, what you (we?) really rely on is just politics.

Do you not think industry understands these issues?

'Industry' do understand the issues and do reflect on them. But unfortunately that has very little to do with the way the assigned money goes.

So what method other than LCOE should be used?

It is a kind of fuzzy area at this moment but people already tries to make assumptions regarding the 'real' price of energy sources based on their contribution to the 'end price'.

You know, most people here do not really care about LCOE. We are not on that end of the wire...

 

[russ_watters]

Do you not think industry understands these issues?

Of course they do. But I wasn't responding to them, I was responding to you.

Intermittency is an engineering problem that can be solved.

Of course it can. It just costs money. Money that you didn't account for in your LCOE-backed claim.

But renewables do dominate new construction: nat gas is only 16% of new capacity additions planned for this year:

Those are gigawatts, not gigawatt-hours. When you replace a coal plant, you need gigawatt-hours. And that's what your LCOE-backed claim was about. GW is another *extremely* misleading way to compare different sources. It's much worse than LCOE.

Try this:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01

Picking the last full year (2018-19):

• Coal: -184,500 GWH
• Nat Gas: +116,600 GWH
• Solar: +8,100 GWH
• "Other" Renewables: +14,400 GWH (mostly wind -- excludes hydro and solar)

So for that year, natural gas took up 63% of the drop in coal generation. Those renewables picked-up 12% of it. Total generation for the year was down slightly, and there are other sources, which is why they don't sum to 100%.

On the other side of LCOE are the uncounted costs of coal and natural gas. Natural gas requires a pipeline infrastructure and extraction industry, that is largely built, but needs to be maintained.

No, obviously that cost is captured in the cost of the fuel.

Fortunately, we rely on capitalism, not public debate...Fortunately while all this debate is happening, massive construction of wind and solar is underway.

Unfortunately, the "massive construction of wind and solar" is nowhere close to as massive or as cheap as you think it is. And that's not really a matter of debate, it is a matter of correctly understanding facts.

 

[BWV]

Those are gigawatts, not gigawatt-hours. When you replace a coal plant, you need gigawatt-hours. And that's what your LCOE-backed claim was about. GW is another *extremely* misleading way to compare different sources.

Try this:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01

Picking the last full year (2018-19):

• Coal: -184,500 GWH
• Nat Gas: +116,600 GWH
• Solar: +8,100 GWH
• "Other" Renewables: +14,400 GWH (mostly wind -- excludes hydro and solar)

So for that year, natural gas took up 63% of the drop in coal generation. Those renewables picked-up 12% of it. Total generation for the year was down slightly, and there are other sources, which is why they don't sum to 100%.Unfortunately, the "massive construction of wind and solar" is nowhere close to as massive or as cheap as you think it is. And that's not really a matter of debate, it is a matter of correctly understanding facts.

You are comparing actual generation with my chart of planned new construction, so how that is relevant? All you data shows is renewables are a small % of current generation, so we don't have to worry that much about intermittency or other grid issues

As this shows:

the slated construction of new generation capacity this year is massively skewed to renewables.

If you want to quibble with LCOE, fine - but its a good starting point for discussion and very applicable in locations where renewable generation is a low percentage of generating capacity,

 

[Rive]

All you data shows is renewables are a small % of current generation...

Regarding intermittency it's the capacity what matters, not the actual generation.

 

[russ_watters]

You are comparing actual generation with my chart of planned new construction, so how that is relevant?

Do you know what the difference between a watt and a watt-hour is? That's the issue I'm pointing out.

 

[BWV]

Do you know what the difference between a watt and a watt-hour is? That's the issue I'm pointing out.

yes, and only pure baseload power like nuclear or hydro comes close to producing gW* 365*24 gWh hours in a year. Gas ramps up and down as needed. Solar is convenient as it produces power at peak times, whereas wind is typically better at night.

 

[Rive]

Solar is convenient as it produces power at peak times...

Erm... what?

 

[BWV]

Erm... what?

depends on the market, but in areas with warm summers peak demand is driven by A/C in the afternoon - and need to be careful about differentiating roof-top solar, where consumption is tied to a home where the resident is away during the day vs utility-scale which is tied to overall grid demand. this discussion only refers to utility-scale installations - home rooftop solar remains uneconomical except in high cost, sunny markets like CA.

here is some nationwide data
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=429

 

[russ_watters]

yes,

So you recognize that when you cite watt-hours in one post and watts in another, those numbers can't be compared to each other, right?

and only pure baseload power like nuclear or hydro comes close to producing gW* 365*24 gWh hours in a year.

Nobody claimed it did. The claim/point is that it (capacity factor) is much, much higher for other sources than for solar and wind. That's how you reconcile the vast majority of new GW being solar but the vast majority of new GWH being natural gas.

There's another related factor that is hidden in this analysis: Increasing natural gas electricity doesn't necessarily require building new plants, it is also being done by increasing the output of existing plants.

Gas ramps up and down as needed. Solar is convenient as it produces power at peak times, whereas wind is typically better at night.

That made me spit soda on my keyboard. Solar is convenient? Yikes.

Again: the point is that when you shut down a coal plant, you need to replace the energy (GWH) it produced. Right now, most of that energy is coming from natural gas, and that isn't expected to change and your citation of new renewable GW doesn't imply it will change. Or to put it another way: when you cite LCOE and then back it up with new renewable GW construction, it paints a false picture that we're on the way towards a renewables-dominated grid.

 

[russ_watters]

Erm... what?

depends on the market, but in areas with warm summers peak demand is driven by A/C in the afternoon...

It is true that solar's output profile sometimes corresponds somewhat to a summer load profile. The word "convenient" is qualitative and to me implies much more of a positive than is warranted by the statement. Because the other side of the coin is that solar has exactly zero ability to vary its output profile to meet demand. That's basically the exact opposite of convenient.

 

[russ_watters]

To try to keep this focused on the OP, central to the issue raised by the OP is the apparent mismatch between perception and reality when it comes to renewables: Renewables are (apparently) cheap, so why does installing nenewables make electricity more expensive instead of less expensive? That's the question I'm answering.

 

[Rive]

Renewables are (apparently) cheap, so why does installing nenewables make electricity more expensive instead of less expensive?

My usual (short) answer for this is that renewables are indeed cheap on the other end of the wire: but I'm paying my bills on this side of the wire, and what's between the two makes this matter rather tricky.

 

[BWV]

So you recognize that when you cite watt-hours in one post and watts in another, those numbers can't be compared to each other, right?

Nobody claimed it did. The claim/point is that it (capacity factor) is much, much higher for other sources than for solar and wind. That's how you reconcile the vast majority of new GW being solar but the vast majority of new GWH being natural gas.

There's another related factor that is hidden in this analysis: Increasing natural gas electricity doesn't necessarily require building new plants, it is also being done by increasing the output of existing plants.

That made me spit soda on my keyboard. Solar is convenient? Yikes.

Again: the point is that when you shut down a coal plant, you need to replace the energy (GWH) it produced. Right now, most of that energy is coming from natural gas, and that isn't expected to change and your citation of new renewable GW doesn't imply it will change. Or to put it another way: when you cite LCOE and then back it up with new renewable GW construction, it paints a false picture that we're on the way towards a renewables-dominated grid.

I get the distinction between gWh and gW. In 2019 natural gas was 43% of installed capacity (gW) and produced 38% of US electricity (gWh). Non-hydro renewables were 14% of installed capacity and generated 10% of total electricity. Note that is a year-end number, with substantial new installations - solar and wind began 2019 at about 11% of capacityhttps://www.eia.gov/energyexplained...y-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php

and

Picking the last full year (2018-19):

• Coal: -184,500 GWH
• Nat Gas: +116,600 GWH
• Solar: +8,100 GWH
• "Other" Renewables: +14,400 GWH (mostly wind -- excludes hydro and solar)

So for that year, natural gas took up 63% of the drop in coal generation. Those renewables picked-up 12% of it. Total generation for the year was down slightly, and there are other sources, which is why they don't sum to 100%.

Solar was actually about + 22K gWh when the increase in small scale is included, so renewables are about 20% of the decline in coal. But gas generation varies quite a bit, electricity production from both gas and coal declined in 2016-17 and 2014-15 saw a 1194k gWh decline in coal relative to a 200k gWh imcrease in gas and relatively flat total YOY generation

 

[BWV]

To try to keep this focused on the OP, central to the issue raised by the OP is the apparent mismatch between perception and reality when it comes to renewables: Renewables are (apparently) cheap, so why does installing nenewables make electricity more expensive instead of less expensive? That's the question I'm answering.

Its not a simplistic equation, many other factors at play. My point was only that where you have real market-based decisions rather than gov fiat, renewables are competitive and do not translate into higher retail prices

 

[BWV]

What is the cost of nat gas in Australia - ~$7 AUD / gigajoule?

at 0.77 exchange and 947.82 CF / GJ = ~$5.10 USD / MFC compared to current Henry Hub of ~$2.75. While Australia is a net exporter of natural gas, the size of the country and lack of pipelines mean some locations require LNG

Only the US and Canada have cheap natural gas from fracking, so all this discussion about building more gas generation is likely not applicable outside North America

 

[russ_watters]

I get the distinction between gWh and gW. In 2019 natural gas was 43% of installed capacity (gW) and produced 38% of US electricity (gWh). Non-hydro renewables were 14% of installed capacity and generated 10% of total electricity.

What does that tell us? What's the connection between those numbers (if any), and between them and the discussion we are having?

But gas generation varies quite a bit, electricity production from both gas and coal declined in 2016-17 and 2014-15 saw a 1194k gWh decline in coal relative to a 200k gWh imcrease in gas and relatively flat total YOY generation

Yes, that's true. What does that tell us relevant to the current discussion? Are we talking about the weather now?

Its not a simplistic equation, many other factors at play.

Yes, I believe that's what I said that started this part of the discussion.

My point was only that where you have real market-based decisions rather than gov fiat, renewables are competitive and do not translate into higher retail prices.

I know that's your point. It's factually wrong. Really, really wrong. Since you bring in government fiat, why do you think California has such high renewable adoption? It's because they subsidize it heavily ("government fiat"). And that cost doesn't factor into LCOE either. In other words, despite spending tons of money to implement renewables that doesn't show up in the retail price, the retail price is still high/rising. It's an additional level of wrong.

Note: your sources are mismatched again. We're discussing intermittent renewables, and the bottom chart is total renewables. The Hoover Dam is not part of this discussion; it operates under a totally different economics than solar/wind.