Energy Storage Replace Gas Plants

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Sure.  As that is from the Calgary Herald that 500 million is 360 million USD. 360/400= .9 US  Even lower than what I projected from ENREL.

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

We will see what Californians will pay for their electricity versus the obscene prices they already pay due to similar mistakes in the past. The price to the residential and commercial customers is what matters, not the theoretical price the green industries tout. You have to include any subsidies, new power lines, maintenance, lifespan etc. 

Wind power has lowered the cost per megawatt hour wholesale in Texas from $67/mwh in 2007 3% wind)to $27/mwh in 2017 (19% wind)  What it has done is eliminate high priced coal and NG when prices are above the market clearing price  for NG in the Permian basin.  Due to the necessity of selling the  Casing head NG, Permian prices go negative in April and sometimes late March or early May.

Natural Gas Prices In The Permian Flip Negative Again

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Natural-Gas-Prices-In-The-Permian-Flip-Negative-Again.html

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey

https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Energy Portfolio/Renewable Energy/Renewable Development Fund/Completed Projects/Energy Production/RDF_Dragonfly_Solar_Final_Presentation.pdf

This PDF details a near Megawatt size project that apparently needs $1.6 mil. To be fair it's from September of 2018. 

Here we go. One in North Dakota, priced at $1.25 per watt. This one will be a piece of shit guaranteed.

https://www.inforum.com/news/government-and-politics/978400-North-Dakotas-first-commercial-solar-energy-project-gets-OK

Edited May 8, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Is anyone using them? Never mind. https://energypost.eu/how-much-do-ultra-supercritical-coal-plants-really-reduce-air-pollution/

Ron, having worked on Houston Lighting and Power's system as a licensed journeyman  generation dispatcher I have dispatched one.  Efficiency in real time is about 40% and Ultrasupercritical(none in North America but lots in China) is about 45%.

Edited May 8, 2020 by nsdp

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Natural gas prices have not been high for several years aside from one little blip.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2478/natural-gas-prices-historical-chart

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Sure.  As that is from the Calgary Herald that 500 million is 360 million USD. 360/400= .9 US  Even lower than what I projected from ENREL.

Cool. Check out that North Dakota project. Do you need me to do NPV for that one? Btw your power output is going to be in the range of 1200 kWh per year again. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Ron, having worked on Houston Lighting and Power's system as a licensed journeyman  generation dispatcher I have dispatched one.  Efficiency in real time is about 40% and Ultrasupercritical(none in North America but lots in China) is about 45%.

Thanks. I am a natural gas fanatic so all I see is all forms of natural gas as the solution. When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail they say. Clean, cheap, superabundant. Not ugly. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey Oh and btw even if that Canadian project actually costs $300 million it's still shit. I can do the numbers and it will still be beat by gas. 

[nsdp + 449]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas prices have not been high for several years aside from one little blip.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2478/natural-gas-prices-historical-chart

That merely shut of coal plants. NG plants have operating losses below 70cents per mmbtu. What ch them drop off on ERCOTs real time dispatch on the web.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, nsdp said:

That merely shut of coal plants. NG plants have operating losses below 70cents per mmbtu. What ch them drop off on ERCOTs real time dispatch on the web.

Losses below 70 cents per mmbtu? 

[EDIT] sorry that was rude 

Edited May 8, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Be nice guys, I am going to bed. 

 

[nsdp + 449]

7 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Losses below 70 cents per mmbtu? Are you retarded?

Nope. You have plant personnel, property taxes(formula in Texas follows mwh generated maintenance cost per hour operated. , Transmission fees  for power on grid. NG plants are not located in load centers so it is very common late at night for prices to go negative on the grid and the powerplant still has to pay fixed transmission delivery fees.    You obviously have never had the software to tell you which plant to dispatch for maximum operating efficiency.

Edited May 8, 2020 by nsdp

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Nope. You have plant personnel, property taxes(formula in Texas follows mwh generated maintenance cost per hour operated. , Transmission fees  for power on grid. NG plants are not located in load centers so it is very common late at night for prices to go negative on the grid and the powerplant still has to pay fixed transmission delivery fees.    You obviously have never had the software to tell you which plant to dispatch for maximum operating efficiency.

I saw your experience and retracted the insult. Do you have any specific figures for say, a 1000 MW power plant? As I understand, if gas is $3 per mmbtu then you're looking at about $400 M per year in fuel costs right?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey

Let's make this easy. Give me a $ per watt figure and a location for the plant. I'll write up another comparison with what you consider to be fair. Interest rate and electric rate won't matter since they'll be constant for both plants. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

13 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey Oh and btw even if that Canadian project actually costs $300 million it's still shit. I can do the numbers and it will still be beat by gas. 

As I said before I am mystified by this solar plant in Alberta being built today. But in 3-4 years solar will beat gas even in Alberta.

The 1MW plant in Minn. is too small to compare, doesn't have efficiencies of scale, need at least 100MW for comparison. 

The N. Dakota plant is from Feb 2019. Basically right in line with price reductions. 

2017 = 1.5

2018 = 1.29

2019 = 1.11

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey

Let's make this easy. Give me a $ per watt figure and a location for the plant. I'll write up another comparison with what you consider to be fair. Interest rate and electric rate won't matter since they'll be constant for both plants. 

$.95/W in Georgia

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

Persko's have been around for 100 years and they STILL have the EXACT same problems, cheap to make, but they die quickly.  Show said new Perskos addressing even ONE of their problems.... they have not done so.  Lots of articles published, none of their "solutions" actually work. 

17 hours ago, Wombat said:

I disagree, think you should search this site for Perovskite solar cells. Looks like they on the way. Many on this blog do not bother to read the articles, despite their profound potential effect on O&G industry.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

Putting aside transmission issues Tibet really does look like Chinas 'Saudi Arabia' of wind and solar. if they utilise both then that would make for more efficient use of the HVDC network. 

https://globalwindatlas.info/

https://globalsolaratlas.info/map?c=10.228437,69.082031,3

Funny thing about mountains. they hold things called SNOW, ICE conditions from being in clouds which coats everything in hoar frost, and generally do not have flat ground to build solar parks on.  The flat ground that DOES exist is at the bottom of valley's where the sun does not rise in the morning till 2 hours later than everywhere else and you have the hoar frost to melt off and to top it off, the sun goes to sleep much sooner as well.  Overlay the roughness feature from globalwind atlas over Tibet...  Now Tibet is a gigantic area to be sure and certainly will have regions without blocking mountains etc.  What are the actual conditions though?  Should be excellent areas for solar for sure.  PS: If you use solar tracking on top of a mountain..... 😎 you get roughly ~2 more hours per day of sunlight.  So, that singular solar panel will have AWESOME stats.  Obviously depending on height of mountain... 😎   PPS: Looked it up: Lhasa is known for being the sunniest place in tibet and gets 3000 hours of sun a year.  Not bad, but what % of those sunny days is actually--> Sunny. 

And the density at 5000m is half that of sea level.  Good luck with that "wind".... Wind power is Velocity cubed times Density..., but if you can actually GET to the top of said mountains.... the consistency of the wind is great. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey

Let's make this easy. Give me a $ per watt figure and a location for the plant. I'll write up another comparison with what you consider to be fair. Interest rate and electric rate won't matter since they'll be constant for both plants. 

$.95/W in Ty Ty, Georgia. Using NREL calculator a 500MW facility would yield avg. 896,982,528 kWh/Year AC

https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php

Edited May 8, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Wind power has lowered the cost per megawatt hour wholesale in Texas from $67/mwh in 2007 3% wind)to $27/mwh in 2017 (19% wind)  What it has done is eliminate high priced coal and NG when prices are above the market clearing price  for NG in the Permian basin.  Due to the necessity of selling the  Casing head NG, Permian prices go negative in April and sometimes late March or early May.

Natural Gas Prices In The Permian Flip Negative Again

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Natural-Gas-Prices-In-The-Permian-Flip-Negative-Again.html

No, TEXAS fracking and producing an extra 4 million Barrels of oil a day with its associated gas FORCING NAT GAS PRICES NEGATIVE, dropped electricity prices!!!!  Wind, actually INCREASED the cost of electricity, but W. Texas has best wind in the country for consistency and there were MASSIVE federal tax credits... hrmm gee I wonder why.... 

Oh and WHO are building these wind "farms"??? Utilities in Texas?  HELL NO!  Slick wiley asshats from Massachusetts, New York, etc who are then "claiming" "green" energy credits even though the Texas power grid does NOT touch the Eastern USA grid...

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Funny thing about mountains. they hold things called SNOW, ICE conditions from being in clouds which coats everything in hoar frost, and generally do not have flat ground to build solar parks on.  The flat ground that DOES exist is at the bottom of valley's where the sun does not rise in the morning till 2 hours later than everywhere else and you have the hoar frost to melt off and to top it off, the sun goes to sleep much sooner as well.  Overlay the roughness feature from globalwind atlas over Tibet...  Now Tibet is a gigantic area to be sure and certainly will have regions without blocking mountains etc.  What are the actual conditions though?  Should be excellent areas for solar for sure.  PS: If you use solar tracking on top of a mountain..... 😎 you get roughly ~2 more hours per day of sunlight.  So, that singular solar panel will have AWESOME stats.  Obviously depending on height of mountain... 😎   PPS: Looked it up: Lhasa is known for being the sunniest place in tibet and gets 3000 hours of sun a year.  Not bad, but what % of those sunny days is actually--> Sunny. 

And the density at 5000m is half that of sea level.  Good luck with that "wind".... Wind power is Velocity cubed times Density..., but if you can actually GET to the top of said mountains.... the consistency of the wind is great. 

Tibet behind the Himalayas is a dry high altitude plateau rather than a mountain range. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, nsdp said:

Wind and solar and water.   Hydrogen is a storage mechanism for  load balancing using hydrogen and oxygen(electrolysis) when you have a surplus of renewables and then run them though a specially  designed combined cycle plant to replace the sun when it doesn't shine or the wind when it doesn't blow.  You also provide reactive power for the grid which synthetic AC  from solar and wind does not prove to energize your transformers and power lines; you have inertial mass to adsorb the effects of lights being turned on and off preventing over generation or voltage collapse; and you can increase/decrease the magnetic field to raise/lower the  grid voltage. voltage.  If you can do Maxwell's equations you know that no power flows if any of those four values are 0.   Batteries do not provide DYNAMIC reactive power, or inertial mass or voltage control for AC.

I can do Maxwells eqn's and I can tell u that they un-necessary for this discussion. Of course batteries provide reactive power, IF THERE ARE ENOUGH OF THEM! They provide the fastest reactive power, but no country on the planet has enough batteries yet to do the job properly.

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 hours ago, nsdp said:

Wind and solar and water.   Hydrogen is a storage mechanism for  load balancing using hydrogen and oxygen(electrolysis) when you have a surplus of renewables and then run them though a specially  designed combined cycle plant to replace the sun when it doesn't shine or the wind when it doesn't blow.  You also provide reactive power for the grid which synthetic AC  from solar and wind does not prove to energize your transformers and power lines; you have inertial mass to adsorb the effects of lights being turned on and off preventing over generation or voltage collapse; and you can increase/decrease the magnetic field to raise/lower the  grid voltage. voltage.  If you can do Maxwell's equations you know that no power flows if any of those four values are 0.   Batteries do not provide DYNAMIC reactive power, or inertial mass or voltage control for AC.

I agree that H2 storage necessary as well, plus pumped hydro, but pls don't believe the BS that electrical engineers spew out about grid instability just coz they deny climate change.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

$.95/W in Ty Ty, Georgia. Using NREL calculator a 500MW facility would yield avg. 896,982,528 kWh/Year AC

https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php

I'll scale it up to 1000 MW for fun math. With what you've provided me, we're yielding 1800 kWhs per annum for every kilowatt installed.

Btw, when you see project reports, they factor in the federal subsidy, so that $0.95 won't be receiving a 22% cut. 

Interest rate 5%. Electric rate $0.07/kWhr. Natural gas is at $3.00 per mmBtu. All power is sold. Period of 20 years.

No tax factored in, as it would affect both situations equally.

NPV

Cash flow is the same every year, so we don't need to sum a bunch of individual cash flows.

GAS

https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+gas+plant+cost&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS874US874&oq=natural+gas+plant+cost&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.2724j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

For a CAPEX figure of $812 per kW

[($200,000,000 * 20) / ((1 + 0.05)^20)] - $812,000,000 = $695,000,000

SOLAR

As provided by you, $0.95 per kW. 

Annual earnings: 1,000,000 kW * 1800 kWhr/y * 0.07 = $126,000,000

[($126,000,000 * 20) / ((1 + 0.05)^20)] - $950,000,000 = - $238,000

You may now submit your objections... 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey

I mean hey, at least you're only 200k in the negative now, instead of 6 million. 

If in fact the federal cut still applies to the price, its NPV becomes $200 million. Only $500 million to go before it's on par with gas! And it's in the most ideal location... with no capital cost for storage. 

I think I'll do NPV for a combined cycle plant next. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior