78% of new US electricity solar & wind this year!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42495

[markslawson + 1,057]

47 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42495

It's what you'd expect. State governments have been boosting wind and solar with subsidies and mandated targets, as they don't run the grids so they don't care what trouble intermittent sources causes and they don't have to pay the power bills. Consumers do. In the meantime it looks as if they have been something about emissions. However, the comparison on installed capacity is quite misleading. Wind turbines typically have an average output of about one third of nominal capacity (more for offshore). For PVs its about 20 per cent, give or take. For solar towers and the like its a lot more but they are rare. The gas projects produce power on demand so the average output is whatever the network requires. In other words you can't really compare the two forms of energy by installed base. It just doesn't work, and EIA should have known better. However, if we are going to compare them in this way, remember that wind and solar are very low value forms of renewable network power. Hydro is a high value renewable.  So I'd recommend discounting wind installed power by two thirds and the PV base by four fifths, while leaving gas as is. Still a lot of wind and PV but less than gas..    

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

see below

Edited May 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

32 minutes ago, markslawson said:

It's what you'd expect. State governments have been boosting wind and solar with subsidies and mandated targets, as they don't run the grids so they don't care what trouble intermittent sources causes and they don't have to pay the power bills. Consumers do. In the meantime it looks as if they have been something about emissions. However, the comparison on installed capacity is quite misleading. Wind turbines typically have an average output of about one third of nominal capacity (more for offshore). For PVs its about 20 per cent, give or take. For solar towers and the like its a lot more but they are rare. The gas projects produce power on demand so the average output is whatever the network requires. In other words you can't really compare the two forms of energy by installed base. It just doesn't work, and EIA should have known better. However, if we are going to compare them in this way, remember that wind and solar are very low value forms of renewable network power. Hydro is a high value renewable.  So I'd recommend discounting wind installed power by two thirds and the PV base by four fifths, while leaving gas as is. Still a lot of wind and PV but less than gas..    

The capacity factor for combined cycle gas is 57% https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a

solar is 25%, wind 35% https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b

so wind and solar are still more.

Then for fun we can throw in the retirements and the net capacity factor addition of natural gas drops below solar alone!

[markslawson + 1,057]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The capacity factor for combined cycle gas is 57% https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a

solar is 25%, wind 35% https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b

so wind and solar are still more.

Then for fun we can throw in the retirements and the net capacity factor addition of natural gas drops below solar alone!

Jay - please please read my original post. Your analysis is wide of the mark because you misunderstand just how the two types of energy are used on grids. I'm sure the capacity factor is as EIA says but that's simply what the system asks of it.. its a reflection of how much its used, often to cover the gaps left as renewables drop out. The point is that its theoretical or maximum capacity factor is up near 80-90 per cent (okay not 100, now that I think about it, as it has to drop out at times for maintenance) but the theoretical or maximum capacity factor for the renewables remains as I said. It can only go down, not up. I've often seen attempt to compare capacity factors of dispatchable and renewable energy in that way with green energy advocates then trying to claim that there is not much difference between the two. But you can't do it like that.  As I said previously, if you wanted to compare the renewable and dispatchable installations then you discount the renewables by the amounts indicated and leave the dispatchable capacity unchanged. As for retirements we were talking about new capacity. 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey

I always get a kick out of interacting online with renewable energy advocates as it can offer a pretty good opportunity for everyone to learn.

Regarding your first chart, an interested observer may notice the ... jump ... in the month of December compared to the trailing 11 months.

Now, I was aware that the PTC and ITC programs were to expire this calendar year, but I thought that only applied to the start of construction.

That huge year end spike implies that production - itself - is needed for tax credits.  Will look further into it.

Likewise, your natgas retirement of <4 GW implies a half dozen older plants heading for the barn. Will check deeper into that as well.

Biggest issue to be raised, perhaps,  is your misuse of the capacity factor definition.

This is a source of ongoing, unnecessary  contention, IMHO, if one is clear on the distinction between utilization and output.

Will expand further tomorrow, but to use a Combined Cycle Gas Plant at 100% design output from 6:00 AM to noon, then run it all out from 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM, one will utilize the plant for 12 hours (50% of the day), but it will operate at 100% nameplate capacity during that time.

Those hours are the highest revenue producers (electricity is priced at the wholesale level in 5 minute increments), and the plants are essentially offline - not burning fuel - during the slack hours.

This is a HUGE reason these plants are being built all around the world.

In very sharp contrast, as Mr. Slawson has pointed out, the Ra/Zephyr outfits are weather dependent and - in the case of wind - virtually always have strongest output in the very early morning hours in the spring and autumn seasons when demand - and wholesale pricing - are lowest.

If this thread kicks off interest, the Lazard LOCE report will be referenced and, perhaps, the EIA's excellent LOCE/LACE report from February.

Sans subsidies, there would be no new renewables built in the USA.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Still a lot of wind and PV but less than gas.

I'll give you 100% availability on gas but I'm sticking with 35% wind and 25% solar as reported by the EIA. That puts gas at 9.31MWh and S&W at 9.84MWh. That is a lot of gas but less than solar and wind.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey

I always get a kick out of interacting online with renewable energy advocates as it can offer a pretty good opportunity for everyone to learn.

Regarding your first chart, an interested observer may notice the ... jump ... in the month of December compared to the trailing 11 months.

Now, I was aware that the PTC and ITC programs were to expire this calendar year, but I thought that only applied to the start of construction.

That huge year end spike implies that production - itself - is needed for tax credits.  Will look further into it.

Likewise, your natgas retirement of <4 GW implies a half dozen older plants heading for the barn. Will check deeper into that as well.

Biggest issue to be raised, perhaps,  is your misuse of the capacity factor definition.

This is a source of ongoing, unnecessary  contention, IMHO, if one is clear on the distinction between utilization and output.

Will expand further tomorrow, but to use a Combined Cycle Gas Plant at 100% design output from 6:00 AM to noon, then run it all out from 3:00 PM to 9:00 PM, one will utilize the plant for 12 hours (50% of the day), but it will operate at 100% nameplate capacity during that time.

Those hours are the highest revenue producers (electricity is priced at the wholesale level in 5 minute increments), and the plants are essentially offline - not burning fuel - during the slack hours.

This is a HUGE reason these plants are being built all around the world.

In very sharp contrast, as Mr. Slawson has pointed out, the Ra/Zephyr outfits are weather dependent and - in the case of wind - virtually always have strongest output in the very early morning hours in the spring and autumn seasons when demand - and wholesale pricing - are lowest.

If this thread kicks off interest, the Lazard LOCE report will be referenced and, perhaps, the EIA's excellent LOCE/LACE report from February.

Sans subsidies, there would be no new renewables built in the USA.

Well this sounds like fun!

Majority of solar and wind projects commonly come online in December and gas in Q2: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39232

Federal Wind Subsidies https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f71/weto-funding-factsheet-2020.pdf

Natural gas retirements will come primarily from older units that came online in the 1950s or 1960s. EIA expects natural gas retirements in 2020 to total 3.7 GW, and 68% of those retirements are steam turbine plants. Most of the retiring capacity, 2.2 GW, comes from Alamitos, Huntington Beach, and Redondo Beach AES plants in California. The Inland Empire Energy Center (a 10-year-old, 0.7 GW single-shaft combined-cycle plant) is also retiring because it has been operating below capacity for several years.

I will look forward to our discussion.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey

I, likewise, look forward to this upcoming engagement as it may spark some interesting perspectives and data.

In a few hours, I should be in a better position to respond.

Meantime, if you look a bit into that Inland Energy Empire retirement, you may encounter some "nuts and bolts" understanding of Combined Cycle Gas Generators as that particular operation was a pioneering  effort that has been found to be technologically lacking.

The newest iterations of turbines - particularly the latest H Frame units from GE (Siemens and Mitsubishi are the other big players) are what is turning global electricity production on its head.

You may also wish to peek into the recent FERC decision regarding PJM's Minimum Offer Price Rule (good luck trying to follow that Byzantine process) as the ramifications are nothing short of a knockout blow to ALL future renewable projects in the USA.

In fact, I would not be surprised if that huge December spike in your first chart is related to that FERC decision.

Will follow up and - hopefully - post later.

This is an absolutely fascinating topic (electricity generation/consumption/pricing) that does not garner the attention it deservrs, IMHO.

(Edit ... my original post should have been LCOE and LACE - Levelized Cost of Electricity/Levelized Avoided Cost of Electricity.

The short 2019 pdf from Lazard is an excellent intro as long as one carefully observes - and understands - the supporting footnotes and parameters as explained in the concluding tables. Definitely where the 'rubber hits the road' and portends future potentialities.)

Edited May 1, 2020 by Coffeeguyzz
Misspelling

[John Snyder + 4]

Can anyone please explain to me why 98% of the wind farms I saw spanning TX, NM, AZ, CA were idle. There were winds. This was during spring. One out of a hundred windmills would be operating. How is that efficient or a good ROI?

[pisstol + 48]

Mr. McKinsey:

Why did you choose oilprice.com to propagandize in favor of wind and solar? I am enthusiastic about wind and solar. But I am not a jobless oil worker. A lot of your readers are depressed and might be permanently out of work. They might not be in a mood to hear about how well their competitors are doing.

Can you start some discussions about geothermal? An article on oilprice.com ("The Oil Price Crash Could Trigger A Geothermal Energy Boom") said that oil drillers might potentially get jobs in that field:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/The-Oil-Price-Crash-Could-Trigger-A-Geothermal-Energy-Boom.html

The article says: “As much as 50% of the cost of geothermal comes from drilling, so a plunge in oil prices can drop costs dramatically,” ....

So geothermal is not a competitor to some oil workers. But why would an oil worker be happy about the success of wind and solar when they are facing a catastrophe?
 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey

I, likewise, look forward to this upcoming engagement as it may spark some interesting perspectives and data.

In a few hours, I should be in a better position to respond.

Meantime, if you look a bit into that Inland Energy Empire retirement, you may encounter some "nuts and bolts" understanding of Combined Cycle Gas Generators as that particular operation was a pioneering  effort that has been found to be technologically lacking.

The newest iterations of turbines - particularly the latest H Frame units from GE (Siemens and Mitsubishi are the other big players) are what is turning global electricity production on its head.

You may also wish to peek into the recent FERC decision regarding PJM's Minimum Offer Price Rule (good luck trying to follow that Byzantine process) as the ramifications are nothing short of a knockout blow to ALL future renewable projects in the USA.

In fact, I would not be surprised if that huge December spike in your first chart is related to that FERC decision.

Will follow up and - hopefully - post later.

This is an absolutely fascinating topic (electricity generation/consumption/pricing) that does not garner the attention it deservrs, IMHO.

Yeah what a mess that FERC ruling is. Initial observations- It only applies to state subsidies, not federal subsidies, It can only possibly be applied to ISO and RTO that cross state lines (New England, PJM, MISO,SPP, NY) (CASIO has a unique relationship with FERC) , PJM crosses over 6 Fed. Appellate Districts and motions against the rule are are going to be filed in all of them. Only takes one court to shut it down. FERC would then have to appeal to SCOTUS. Ohio, the ultimate political swing state, sounds like it is very much against it.States can leave these multi state markets whenever they want and some have threatened to do so. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

9 minutes ago, John Snyder said:

Can anyone please explain to me why 98% of the wind farms I saw spanning TX, NM, AZ, CA were idle. There were winds. This was during spring. One out of a hundred windmills would be operating. How is that efficient or a good ROI?

If the wind is below ~20mph it COSTS them $$$ to turn them on.  On newest turbines, it is probably down to around 15mph today from when I was in the business.  Down South, spring usually has poor wind(intermittent).  If your weather prediction is intermittent, you do not turn on.  If price point is low, you do not turn on.  If no one is purchasing your power at that time of day, you do not turn on.  If the grid is saturated at said time of day, you do not turn on as others are grandfathered in on the totem pole BEFORE wind.  For instance here in Washington/Oregon, we have tons of hydropower in spring and good wind, and the wind turbine companies bitched and whined that they were not able to produce power since hydropower was getting first dibs on the demand.  So, now the brilliant political ideological whores have wind as first dibs and the water gets passed over the dams... and NO ONE will allow anyone to build pumped hydro storage... nor is anyone talking about it.  End Result?  25% of hydropower is LOST, power is more expensive as now lots of gas peaker plants are required when the wind burps

Now up north, spring is an AWESOME wind time. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, pisstol said:

Mr. McKinsey:

Why did you choose oilprice.com to propagandize in favor of wind and solar? I am enthusiastic about wind and solar. But I am not a jobless oil worker. A lot of your readers are depressed and might be permanently out of work. They might not be in a mood to hear about how well their competitors are doing.

Can you start some discussions about geothermal? An article on oilprice.com ("The Oil Price Crash Could Trigger A Geothermal Energy Boom") said that oil drillers might potentially get jobs in that field:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/The-Oil-Price-Crash-Could-Trigger-A-Geothermal-Energy-Boom.html

The article says: “As much as 50% of the cost of geothermal comes from drilling, so a plunge in oil prices can drop costs dramatically,” ....

So geothermal is not a competitor to some oil workers. But why would an oil worker be happy about the success of wind and solar when they are facing a catastrophe?
 

One learns best by discussing with those who have different viewpoints. I don't know anything about geothermal so I'll give it a shot. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I'll give you 100% availability on gas but I'm sticking with 35% wind and 25% solar as reported by the EIA. That puts gas at 9.31MWh and S&W at 9.84MWh. That is a lot of gas but less than solar and wind.

Fair enough - provided its understood that wind and solar and the like are very low value forms of energy, then its all good.. 

[NickW + 2,714]

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well this sounds like fun!

Majority of solar and wind projects commonly come online in December and gas in Q2: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39232

Federal Wind Subsidies https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/02/f71/weto-funding-factsheet-2020.pdf

Thanks for posting that. 

I was interested to see the production tax credit   is limited to 10 years so the wind turbines after year 10 get wholesale price with no subsidy. Assuming a lifespan of 25-30 years the subsidy is only relevant for 30-40% of it. 

[Refman + 207]

20 hours ago, pisstol said:

Mr. McKinsey:

Why did you choose oilprice.com to propagandize in favor of wind and solar? I am enthusiastic about wind and solar. But I am not a jobless oil worker. A lot of your readers are depressed and might be permanently out of work. They might not be in a mood to hear about how well their competitors are doing.

Can you start some discussions about geothermal? An article on oilprice.com ("The Oil Price Crash Could Trigger A Geothermal Energy Boom") said that oil drillers might potentially get jobs in that field:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/The-Oil-Price-Crash-Could-Trigger-A-Geothermal-Energy-Boom.html

The article says: “As much as 50% of the cost of geothermal comes from drilling, so a plunge in oil prices can drop costs dramatically,” ....

So geothermal is not a competitor to some oil workers. But why would an oil worker be happy about the success of wind and solar when they are facing a catastrophe?
 

If I were a jobless oil worker, maybe I'd look to an industry that is doing better and decide to switch in order to feed my family. I understand the wind industry has some good paying jobs as well, although you might need a good head for heights. The oil industry is notoriously boom and bust, and with each cycle many leave for good after getting sick of the unpredictability of the industry.

Geothermal is an interesting field and I'm surprised it has not caught on more, I guess at the end of the day it just isn't competitive on a cost basis.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

19 hours ago, markslawson said:

Fair enough - provided its understood that wind and solar and the like are very low value forms of energy, then its all good.. 

Just until storage arrives en masse in a couple years. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/tremendous-demand-for-stationary-storage-outstrips-teslas-2020-supply-ca/577157/

[markslawson + 1,057]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Just until storage arrives en masse in a couple years. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/tremendous-demand-for-stationary-storage-outstrips-teslas-2020-supply-ca/577157/

Jay - sorry to keep dong this to you but all of that is straight fantasy. Go and look at the storage figures quoted in the story you link. They are trivial. Not worth even mentioning. The demand Musk is talking about is basically setting up storage so that grids can hang together long enough to switch between renewables and dispatchable, when the renewables go down, and even that application would mostly be for microgrids (isolated towns - plenty of these in Australia but also a number in the US). Batteries have some use in major grids for stuff like frequency management and managing peak loads and so on, but no one expect activists have seriously suggested them as grid storage. Plenty of main grid storage solutions have been suggested but nothing has yet come to the fore. Now that's it.. time to more on.  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

9 hours ago, Refman said:

If I were a jobless oil worker, maybe I'd look to an industry that is doing better and decide to switch in order to feed my family. I understand the wind industry has some good paying jobs as well, although you might need a good head for heights. The oil industry is notoriously boom and bust, and with each cycle many leave for good after getting sick of the unpredictability of the industry.

Geothermal is an interesting field and I'm surprised it has not caught on more, I guess at the end of the day it just isn't competitive on a cost basis.

As I have said in previous threads, geothermal wells turn into mini mining operations which close off your pipes and destroy your heat exchangers or if direct to turbine, destroy your turbine blades.  Geothermal on paper makes sense, until you have to deal with reality.  Usually CRAP minerals no one wants which everyone has to deal with ~ somehow.  Only place that this is not a massive gargantuan problem is in ICELAND where they the ground is absolutely SATURATED with fresh clean water which has essentially washed all the crappy minerals out.  Arsenic, Calcium, Sodium, Zinc, Manganese, Iron, Barium, ==>> you know the whose who of minerals no one wants in small amounts. 

Geothermal(shallow) is A-Ok for heating needs.  But generating power?  Usually means trying to use ammonia etc in a turbine instead of water due to the above nasty stuff in geothermal water.  Creating very expensive turbines, etc as everything is specialized.  Nothing is off the shelf. 

[Keith boyd + 178]

On 5/1/2020 at 12:24 PM, pisstol said:

Mr. McKinsey:

Why did you choose oilprice.com to propagandize in favor of wind and solar? I am enthusiastic about wind and solar. But I am not a jobless oil worker. A lot of your readers are depressed and might be permanently out of work. They might not be in a mood to hear about how well their competitors are doing.

Can you start some discussions about geothermal? An article on oilprice.com ("The Oil Price Crash Could Trigger A Geothermal Energy Boom") said that oil drillers might potentially get jobs in that field:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/The-Oil-Price-Crash-Could-Trigger-A-Geothermal-Energy-Boom.html

The article says: “As much as 50% of the cost of geothermal comes from drilling, so a plunge in oil prices can drop costs dramatically,” ....

So geothermal is not a competitor to some oil workers. But why would an oil worker be happy about the success of wind and solar when they are facing a catastrophe?
 

I am not worried about it. Wind and solar cant power a semi truck or a plane. It cant power ships or make steel. The cost of storing a tiny amount of the energy is astronomical and it is unreliable and as a previous poster mentioned  a lot of the time its producing when the energy is not wanted.

Try building a wind farm if it is being held up in the courts for a decade over environmental disputes and indigenous rights, and gets sued every time a bird or bat gets killed. All the while it's being held up indefinately with  layer after layer of new conditions and hurdles, and when the conditions are met, they move the goal posts and add  a few more. And while all this is going on they have to deal with paid protestors interfering with construction and trespassing, and creating extra liabilities, while the government drags its feet to do anything about it. Then after you manage to overcome all of that! The local government refuses to issue key permits to move forward with the project and judges make rulings mandating the stoppage of work for various goal post moving reasons.  If the playing field was level renewables other then hydro dont stand a chance. 

I hope trump repeals the ethanol blending mandates. We are drowning in gasoline and short on heavy fuels, while we use farm land to make even more inferior fuel then gasoline while we are also facing a potential food shortage. 

 

Riddle me this batman.....is it more green to grow corn in fields for ethanol or use said fields to put up renewables? Anyone want to dare work that one out? I couldn't tell ya to be honest. I am pretty sure letting the forest grow back is the greenest thing you can do there. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But if you want to reduce the most CO2 and turn it into a carbon sink then grow softwood lumber on it and log it  😎

 

In fact if you are trying to remove co2 from the atmosphere I would say that clear cutting forests and seeding with fast growing softwood, then encasing the lumber in concrete and dumping it in the ocean is the way to go. Both the wood and concrete is a carbon sink where the co2 will never return to the carbon cycle.  It's for the planet after all. 

 

Edit: I just realized that I made a mistake. Concrete doesnt sink concrete it creates it. How do we scuttle wood without making co2 boys? 

 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Keith boyd
Error