Clean Energy Is Canceling Gas Plants

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Over the past two years, interconnection queue data from PJM and ERCOT have shown a drastic shift away from new gas and a steep rise in renewable energy projects. In these two regions, investors finance projects based on expected returns in the competitive market—not based on expectations of cost recovery allowed by regulators of monopoly, vertically-integrated utilities. In other words, this trend represents the shifts in internal risk and reward calculus among investors in highly competitive markets, and reflects a market-based, consensus view of the underlying economic value of different power sources. https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey 

Just for edification purposes, you may want to preserve that article from the Rocky Mountin Institute as an outstanding example of how information is presented so that public perceptions - and opinions - are both shaped and influenced.

Nowhere in that article is made mention of the Production Tax Credits nor the Investment  Tax Credits which will expire/phase out in 90 days.

Anything not under actual construction gleans no benefits, hence the frantic rush these past few years to get projects to qualify.

In fact, should you or anyone check the EIA's chart showing future expected power production, wind drops off a cliff past 2022 as practically  no new projects will break ground after January 1, 2021.

 

Of FAR more immediate  consequence,  however, is the anticipated effects of FERC's MOPR decision which will be nothing short of a knockout blow to new Renewables (sic) if it stands as presently declared.

One other item of consequence, perhaps, is the criminal  case now lodged against Ohio politicians  for accepting bribes from the nuke boys for passing regulations  which have dimmed competition from the gas boys.

Actually, Mr. McKinsey, there are several massive CCGPs under construction in the Appalachian Basin with West Virginia just granting its first go ahead despite ferocious opposition from the coal industry.

 

BTW, your expectations regarding that massive wind project in Wyoming sending juice to California is getting a little ... dicey.

The pols in the Cowboy State are none too thrilled about Oakland's obfuscation surrounding the big coal export terminal proposed in Oakland. Likewise, placing relatively high tax rates on Wyoming-produced wind output is fast gaining traction.

A bump up in rates is the last thing you Californians need right now.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 10/4/2020 at 12:19 PM, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. McKinsey 

Just for edification purposes, you may want to preserve that article from the Rocky Mountin Institute as an outstanding example of how information is presented so that public perceptions - and opinions - are both shaped and influenced.

Nowhere in that article is made mention of the Production Tax Credits nor the Investment  Tax Credits which will expire/phase out in 90 days.

Anything not under actual construction gleans no benefits, hence the frantic rush these past few years to get projects to qualify.

In fact, should you or anyone check the EIA's chart showing future expected power production, wind drops off a cliff past 2022 as practically  no new projects will break ground after January 1, 2021.

 

Of FAR more immediate  consequence,  however, is the anticipated effects of FERC's MOPR decision which will be nothing short of a knockout blow to new Renewables (sic) if it stands as presently declared.

One other item of consequence, perhaps, is the criminal  case now lodged against Ohio politicians  for accepting bribes from the nuke boys for passing regulations  which have dimmed competition from the gas boys.

Actually, Mr. McKinsey, there are several massive CCGPs under construction in the Appalachian Basin with West Virginia just granting its first go ahead despite ferocious opposition from the coal industry.

 

BTW, your expectations regarding that massive wind project in Wyoming sending juice to California is getting a little ... dicey.

The pols in the Cowboy State are none too thrilled about Oakland's obfuscation surrounding the big coal export terminal proposed in Oakland. Likewise, placing relatively high tax rates on Wyoming-produced wind output is fast gaining traction.

A bump up in rates is the last thing you Californians need right now.

The renewable tax credits do not explain why gas in the queue has been steadily dropping:

If Biden wins then FERC will be kicked to the curb. If Trump wins then the states will leave the market. Also note that the market applies to merchant electricity sales, not PPA. PPA alone will support robust renewable growth.

Coal in Wyoming is dying and as wind takes over an appropriate tax rate will be arrived at and $1 MWh is hardly a burdensome problem.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 10/5/2020 at 5:39 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

The renewable tax credits do not explain why gas in the queue has been steadily dropping:

If Biden wins then FERC will be kicked to the curb. If Trump wins then the states will leave the market. Also note that the market applies to merchant electricity sales, not PPA. PPA alone will support robust renewable growth.

Coal in Wyoming is dying and as wind takes over an appropriate tax rate will be arrived at and $1 MWh is hardly a burdensome problem.

Details matter.

RE: why gas is leaving the queue: how does electricity demand look right now? Also, how much of that gas capacity is peaking plants being replaced by battery storage - a technology distinct from renewables with its own business case? Finally, of course they're going to build less gas if they're receiving subsidies for renewables. Let's see what happens after the subsidies dry up and everyone realizes more renewables require more grid investments.

Also, what does this chart look like when you correct for capacity factors? It's all fine and well to say there are 80GW of solar power in the pipeline, but what really matters is energy. I.e. find the expected capacity factor of these plants, and calculate expected energy production. The resulting plot won't be so poignant.

Solar is forever stuck at a 20-25% capacity factor because the sun goes down at night. Physical limit. Wind can theoretically achieve 50-60% capacity factor - if you build 12MW turbines in the North Sea on the tallest possible towers. Most locations don't fare so well. You can build out excess wind, but then you have a windy day and end up curtailing production. I.e. you don't achieve your 50-60% capacity factor. And of course, the wind and solar aren't always where your demand is, so you have to build long transmission lines. And you still have to build synthetic inertia. As you increase your renewable production, this all becomes progressively more expensive. The chart you listed above represents not only the influence of subsidies, but also a grid that hasn't yet hit physical constraints. We're still in the honeymoon phase of renewable development.

Meanwhile, battery storage will not only shave demand peaks, but also fill demand troughs. I.e. we're going to see an increase in base load demand. That means more of your coal, gas, and nuclear plants running flat-out. What's the limit of that? Nuclear power plants run at 90+% capacity, with the <10% downtime accounted for almost entirely by refueling outages. Gen IV reactors will be around 95% capacity factor. Coal and natural gas easily achieve 85%. With the right maintenance, they could probably match nuclear.

Could wind and solar take over the grid? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but many things would have to become extremely cheap. We don't have a technology roadmap to that - much less working prototypes. I would bet the future of the grid includes lots of natural gas, nuclear, coal, and batteries.  Renewables will exist where renewable resources are exceptionally abundant or to appease the masses. Then, once demographics shift toward conservatism (liberals aren't procreating), renewables will finally be isolated to their proper niche.

Greenies will point toward ever cheaper wind and solar. As an engineer, I would point toward physical limits we're rapidly approaching. You can only make a tower so tall, a turbine blade so long, a solar panel so efficient, and any of these so cheap - not for some contrived business or legal reason, but because there are physical limits.

Physics does not bend. If you want to change physics, you need another Einstein. I don't typically base investment decisions on whether another Einstein appears, but you do you.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 10/19/2020 at 7:39 AM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Details matter.

RE: why gas is leaving the queue: how does electricity demand look right now? Also, how much of that gas capacity is peaking plants being replaced by battery storage - a technology distinct from renewables with its own business case? Finally, of course they're going to build less gas if they're receiving subsidies for renewables. Let's see what happens after the subsidies dry up and everyone realizes more renewables require more grid investments.

Also, what does this chart look like when you correct for capacity factors? It's all fine and well to say there are 80GW of solar power in the pipeline, but what really matters is energy. I.e. find the expected capacity factor of these plants, and calculate expected energy production. The resulting plot won't be so poignant.

Solar is forever stuck at a 20-25% capacity factor because the sun goes down at night. Physical limit. Wind can theoretically achieve 50-60% capacity factor - if you build 12MW turbines in the North Sea on the tallest possible towers. Most locations don't fare so well. You can build out excess wind, but then you have a windy day and end up curtailing production. I.e. you don't achieve your 50-60% capacity factor. And of course, the wind and solar aren't always where your demand is, so you have to build long transmission lines. And you still have to build synthetic inertia. As you increase your renewable production, this all becomes progressively more expensive. The chart you listed above represents not only the influence of subsidies, but also a grid that hasn't yet hit physical constraints. We're still in the honeymoon phase of renewable development.

Meanwhile, battery storage will not only shave demand peaks, but also fill demand troughs. I.e. we're going to see an increase in base load demand. That means more of your coal, gas, and nuclear plants running flat-out. What's the limit of that? Nuclear power plants run at 90+% capacity, with the <10% downtime accounted for almost entirely by refueling outages. Gen IV reactors will be around 95% capacity factor. Coal and natural gas easily achieve 85%. With the right maintenance, they could probably match nuclear.

Could wind and solar take over the grid? I suppose it's theoretically possible, but many things would have to become extremely cheap. We don't have a technology roadmap to that - much less working prototypes. I would bet the future of the grid includes lots of natural gas, nuclear, coal, and batteries.  Renewables will exist where renewable resources are exceptionally abundant or to appease the masses. Then, once demographics shift toward conservatism (liberals aren't procreating), renewables will finally be isolated to their proper niche.

Greenies will point toward ever cheaper wind and solar. As an engineer, I would point toward physical limits we're rapidly approaching. You can only make a tower so tall, a turbine blade so long, a solar panel so efficient, and any of these so cheap - not for some contrived business or legal reason, but because there are physical limits.

Physics does not bend. If you want to change physics, you need another Einstein. I don't typically base investment decisions on whether another Einstein appears, but you do you.

No technology roadmap? No prototypes?? We are almost halfway through the roadmap which consists of Solar, On shore Wind, Batteries, Off shore Wind, Transmission, Hydrogen

Utility scale on shore wind and solar are already cheaper than new NGCC:

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

Grid storage batteries continue to drop in cost at 45-50% every 3 years. That puts us just three or four years away from wholesale batteries plus solar being cheaper than new NGCC (the halfway point in the roadmap). The key thing to realize about batteries is that they dramatically increase the revenue of solar and wind by solving the intermittency problem which allows them to sell electricity at higher dispatchable rates and to capture the low price maximum production time periods ( low price because that is when all the other units are also at maximum production often leading to zero price because of curtailiment) and shift that production to peak rate periods. 

https://www.lazard.com/media/451418/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-60.pdf

Off shore wind is at $86 MW/h (the diamond in the wind category of the first chart). It needs to drop by half and that is likely a decade away.

The primary transmission additions we need are in the form of HVDC. These cabes are dropping in cost as production scales and will be driven very dramatically by the expansion of off shore wind which relies upon them. 

Green hydrogen will provide long term storage for seasonal shifting and is also likely a decade away from hitting scale.

No Einstein's needed. Just build it out.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Ron Wagner + 709]

Just build it out with natural gas. Something that has proven it can do the job. It is superabundant and can be piped to where it is needed and then produce electricity. Natural gas is virtually free aside from the transportation and it requires less infrastructure since that is already built in the United states. Other countries around the world have very large finds, I just read on Oil Price about new finds in Columbia. All the countries with new finds plan on using their natural gas. 

Using equipment made in Asia or Europe does not benefit the United States. We need to make our own. 

Your ideas are only good if they can prove themselves at scale. They have never done that. Germany will be using coal for quite awhile. America is the leader in improving air quality among large nations by replacing coal with natural gas. 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No technology roadmap? No prototypes?? We are almost halfway through the roadmap which consists of Solar, On shore Wind, Batteries, Off shore Wind, Transmission, Hydrogen

Utility scale on shore wind and solar are already cheaper than new NGCC:

https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf

Grid storage batteries continue to drop in cost at 45-50% every 3 years. That puts us just three or four years away from wholesale batteries plus solar being cheaper than new NGCC (the halfway point in the roadmap). The key thing to realize about batteries is that they dramatically increase the revenue of solar and wind by solving the intermittency problem which allows them to sell electricity at higher dispatchable rates and to capture the low price maximum production time periods ( low price because that is when all the other units are also at maximum production often leading to zero price because of curtailiment) and shift that production to peak rate periods. 

https://www.lazard.com/media/451418/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-60.pdf

Off shore wind is at $86 MW/h (the diamond in the wind category of the first chart). It needs to drop by half and that is likely a decade away.

The primary transmission additions we need are in the form of HVDC. These cabes are dropping in cost as production scales and will be driven very dramatically by the expansion of off shore wind which relies upon them. 

Green hydrogen will provide long term storage for seasonal shifting and is also likely a decade away from hitting scale.

No Einstein's needed. Just build it out.

Ah, Lazard: the optimistic analysis that completely ignores system-level costs. I cannot emphasize enough that the numbers in Lazard only include the generator and represent a best-case scenario. They do not include the grid costs and physical limits I explicitly called out in my comment.

If you'd read both Lazard and my comment, you would have noticed that. Please don't quote numbers you don't understand; it's a waste of everyone's time.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Messrs. BenF, McKinsey and Wagner

Great to see Lazard's  Version 14.0 just released.

For serious students in these matters, downloading the 20 page pdf and closely studying it, referring back to it, understaning what is included (and excluded) could bring about a lot of clarity to these important, oh-so-contentious matters.

 

'Details matter'. Indeed they do.

While the "Key Assumptions" on the last few pages ought to be the lead off - rather than the  Appendix-type' input - the parameters frame all the preceding stuff, including the graphics posted above  by Mr. McKinsey.

 

A 20 year life span (Page #18)  for CCGPs???? Are you freakin' kidding me? I realize Page #14 offers a financial cast to this ('economic  life'),  but anyone thinking CCGPs will become non functional after two decades (or, indeed, constructs models using this input) will be wildly misled.

 

Mr. McKinsey, Page #12 provides the most succinct chart showing why CCGPs continue to be the preferred choice for power generation worldwide (along with the Page #19 'low' - aka "Real World" -  data).

Not only is the cost to build these plants WAY lower than wind, for one comparison, the cost to OPERATE them (Fixed O&M) is ONE THIRD the cost for the beloved whirleys!!

When one uses a Real World cost of Fuel (NOT $3.45/mmbtu, the high price used throughout this analysis), the 'Fuel Cost' variable plummets.

 

Of utmost significance, however, is the frequent misconflation between 'capacity factor' and UTILIZATION factor.

This crucial distinction is, once again, hammered home when looking at Page #12. The - relatively - high cost of CCGP operation is the cost of fuel/natgas. HOWEVER, virtually every minute that the fuel is being burned, high revenue-producing  electricity is being provided as these daily on/off periods sync with high demand periods (and high revenue generation)  of electricity. This is one of the most powerful factors in the embracing of CCGP technology ... its rapid ramp up/down characteristics.

Tne fact that massive 1,200 Mw plants need only ~20 full time employees is another factor.

The bottom of Page #19 is what engineers, company decision makers, practical policy makers and observers base evaluations upon, to wit, $23/Mwh cost of juice from  CCGPs  going out the door.

The rest is fluff.

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Coffeeguyzz

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Ah, Lazard: the optimistic analysis that completely ignores system-level costs. I cannot emphasize enough that the numbers in Lazard only include the generator and represent a best-case scenario. They do not include the grid costs and physical limits I explicitly called out in my comment.

If you'd read both Lazard and my comment, you would have noticed that. Please don't quote numbers you don't understand; it's a waste of everyone's time.

There are no relevant physical limits. Yes there may be a limit to how big and efficient we can make a wind turbine but that is irrelevant. We just need to build a lot of whatever the optimum size turns out to be. There is far more than enough wind energy off the east coast of North America to provide all the power we need. Since solar panels are already cheaper than gas the most relevant aspect of increased efficiency is the use of less land. But at current 25% conversion efficiency for panels, increasing efficiency to 50% would decrease land needed by half. That would be great but is not required for success.

And what are these imaginary system level costs of yours that you keep touting but never explaining? Remember that with storage you can't tell if a battery is selling you electrons generated by solar or NGCC. Some new transmission will be required but that isn't an overwhelming cost by any means. In fact the transmission costs of off shore wind are built into the cost. NY's first wind farm will aggregate the feeds from the turbines and the cable will come onshore next to Coney Island and run under the street to the heart of Brooklyn. This represents an extreme system level efficiency.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Messrs. BenF, McKinsey and Wagner

Great to see Lazard's  Version 14.0 just released.

For serious students in these matters, downloading the 20 page pdf and closely studying it, referring back to it, understaning what is included (and excluded) could bring about a lot of clarity to these important, oh-so-contentious matters.

 

'Details matter'. Indeed they do.

While the "Key Assumptions" on the last few pages ought to be the lead off - rather than the  Appendix-type' input - the parameters frame all the preceding stuff, including the graphics posted above  by Mr. McKinsey.

 

A 20 year life span (Page #18)  for CCGPs???? Are you freakin' kidding me? I realize Page #14 offers a financial cast to this ('economic  life'),  but anyone thinking CCGPs will become non funtional after two decades (or, indeed, constructs models using this input) will be wildly misled.

 

Mr. McKinsey, Page #12 provides the most succinct chart showing why CCGPs continue to be the preferred choice for power generation worldwide (along with the Page #19 'low' - aka "Real World" -  data).

Not only is the cost to build these plants WAY lower than wind, for one comparison, the cost to OPERATE them (Fixed O&M) is ONE THIRD the cost for the beloved whirleys!!

When one uses a Real World cost of Fuel (NOT $3.45/mmbtu, the high price used throughout this analysis), the 'Fuel Cost' variable plummets.

 

Of utmost significance, however, is the frequent misconflation between 'capacity factor' and UTILIZATION factor.

This crucial distinction is, once again, hammered home when looking at Page #12. The - relatively - high cost of CCGP operation is the cost of fuel/natgas. HOWEVER, virtually every minute that the fuel is being burned, high revenue-producing  electricity is being provided as these daily on/off periods sync with high demand periods (and high revenue generation)  of electricity. This is one of the most powerful factors in the embracing of CCGP technology ... its rapid ramp up/down characteristics.

Tne fact that massive 1,200 Mw plants need only ~20 full time employees is another factor.

The bottom of Page #19 is what engineers, company decision makers, practical policy makers and observers base evaluations upon, to wit, $23/Mwh cost of juice from new CCGPs  going out the door.

The rest is fluff.

 

They use 20 years as the debt amortization schedule for *all* technologies. See slide 14 note 5. This accurately provides for comparisons of new build cost. They also provide the cost of running fully amortized plants see slide 2 note 5. This is common financial practice to amortize over 20 years.

As to fuel cost see slide 4 note 1. Here they provide the new NGCC cost with an average fuel price of $2.59, very real world for the US. The NGCC cost drops from $44 to $38. Solar and wind are still cheaper. 

The $23/MWh that you tout is for a fully depreciated NGCC with a fuel cost of $2.60, not new build. Remember, the transition occurs in stages. First renewables undercut the price of new build and all new production becomes renewable. Then some years later they undercut the cost of depreciated plants and drive them out of the market. 

With batteries and perhaps other storage as the buffer in the system the up/down ramp of NGCC is no longer relevant. They will operate at a fixed optimal base load rate. 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Kramer + 696]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Ah, Lazard: the optimistic analysis that completely ignores system-level costs. I cannot emphasize enough that the numbers in Lazard only include the generator and represent a best-case scenario. They do not include the grid costs and physical limits I explicitly called out in my comment.

If you'd read both Lazard and my comment, you would have noticed that. Please don't quote numbers you don't understand; it's a waste of everyone's time.

You've quickly restored my opinions of your bias from "green" to  "neutral".  Sorry if I was hostile while feeling frustrated. I see you have more than hopium building your opinions and some of our opinions do align (not that its mandatory for good social exchange). 

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

14 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Just build it out with natural gas. Something that has proven it can do the job. It is superabundant and can be piped to where it is needed and then produce electricity. Natural gas is virtually free aside from the transportation and it requires less infrastructure since that is already built in the United states. Other countries around the world have very large finds, I just read on Oil Price about new finds in Columbia. All the countries with new finds plan on using their natural gas. 

Using equipment made in Asia or Europe does not benefit the United States. We need to make our own. 

Your ideas are only good if they can prove themselves at scale. They have never done that. Germany will be using coal for quite awhile. America is the leader in improving air quality among large nations by replacing coal with natural gas. 

 

It would be funny to see nat gas plants get cheaper and smaller if battery costs did go as low as the wishful thinkers say. Considering the 24/7 nature they can run at if you had a small plant store the energy over night in these massive next to free batteries the crew of the gas plant and size of the operation could be quite small. In theory it could remove peak times like a powerwall but at the power plant and not the place of power consumption.  Added into the rate and making all the power wall owners investment a waste except for during a  outage.  If greenies can use the battery argument surely we can also... unless gas plants are cheaper ... making green and battery a hard argument.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

It would be funny to see nat gas plants get cheaper and smaller if battery costs did go as low as the wishful thinkers say. Considering the 24/7 nature they can run at if you had a small plant store the energy over night in these massive next to free batteries the crew of the gas plant and size of the operation could be quite small. In theory it could remove peak times like a powerwall but at the power plant and not the place of power consumption.  Added into the rate and making all the power wall owners investment a waste except for during a  outage.  If greenies can use the battery argument surely we can also... unless gas plants are cheaper ... making green and battery a hard argument.  

You absolutely can make the argument that cheap batteries will help increase the revenue / lower the costs of NGCC. Your problem is that cheap batteries add more value to renewables than NGCC. Solar Wind plus cheap storage is still lower cost than NGCC plus cheap storage.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Re Lazard

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

13 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Re Lazard

 

Thanks for confirming that you don't have any relevant analysis or information.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You absolutely can make the argument that cheap batteries will help increase the revenue / lower the costs of NGCC. Your problem is that cheap batteries add more value to renewables than NGCC. Solar Wind plus cheap storage is still lower cost than NGCC plus cheap storage.

Your saying the battery is cheaper than the generation (in this thought experiment it has to be) . A nat gas plant would only need whatever 24hr demand average is and a battery the size of peak - average (or something like that) vs solar needing enough for days with no sun and wind for days without. That's a massive in efficiency.  So NG would get a smaller more efficient plant and total battery use vs renewable massively over sized battery for its lack of efficiency and untimely schedule.  If you imagine it as a hybrid car it can use its battery in any means to complement the engine. But an electric car charged via sun and wind (imagine it's a big enough panel to run the vehicle) needs a massive battery for when the sun dont shine and you cant complement the sun during the day because you need the power for night. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

17 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Your saying the battery is cheaper than the generation (in this thought experiment it has to be) . A nat gas plant would only need whatever 24hr demand average is and a battery the size of peak - average (or something like that) vs solar needing enough for days with no sun and wind for days without. That's a massive in efficiency.  So NG would get a smaller more efficient plant and total battery use vs renewable massively over sized battery for its lack of efficiency and untimely schedule.  If you imagine it as a hybrid car it can use its battery in any means to complement the engine. But an electric car charged via sun and wind (imagine it's a big enough panel to run the vehicle) needs a massive battery for when the sun dont shine and you cant complement the sun during the day because you need the power for night. 

How much efficiency does an NGCC plant gain by running at optimal baseload versus a normal daily ramp cycle?

Edited October 22, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

You've quickly restored my opinions of your bias from "green" to  "neutral".  Sorry if I was hostile while feeling frustrated. I see you have more than hopium building your opinions and some of our opinions do align (not that its mandatory for good social exchange).

I appreciate that - and where we disagree, I'm happy to keep discussing. Best case scenario, we figure out why we disagree, and a more accurate, common vision will emerge. Worst case scenario, we have fun yelling at each other like grumpy old men. Either way, everyone wins!

To be clear, I am a True Neutral. A libertarian. Professionally disinterested. My give a shit broke, and I shan't be fixing it. What people do is none of my business provided I don't have to pay for it. You want to strip down, smear yourself in grease, get high on peyote, and commune with the old gods? Knock yourself out! Just don't bitch at me when you end up starving on the street.

I think government should be the absolute last resort for anything, to be used only in case of existential threat. But ultimately, we do need some government, some laws, some strategic direction. Hence, I note that a country weaning itself off foreign energy can be good policy. This is consistent with best financial, insurance, and engineering practice: sometimes its worth paying a little more to eliminate risk. I.e. "green" initiatives could possibly be strategically savvy - but I find the "green" aspect of them intellectually deficient and uninteresting. Is there a better, free-market solution to this problem? Maybe. That's definitely worth debating; I like finding better ways to do things - but that's the extent of my opinion.

I'm also a true neutral where climate change is concerned: prove to me that it's a real issue, and I'll take it seriously. Until then, I don't care - and I'm sure as hell not paying trillions of dollars to upend the economy - an extraordinary measure - without extraordinary proof. What's my standard of proof? Bring me evidence that would be accepted in engineering, insurance, finance, or similar. The "peer reviewed" articles I've seen in academia don't cut it because I've read read them, and I've seen academia's standards. They're at best incompetent, at worst corrupt.

I'm similarly disinterested in renewable energy and EVs. I see a business case for EV dominance; I see a business case for renewables, but only in select applications. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other because I can invest in whatever I want. My only concern is understanding what is, in fact, the case.

tl;dr I'm as passionate about these topics as Louis C.K. is about rugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2hzBF2KmqE

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Thanks for confirming that you don't have any relevant analysis or information.

I'll try to find a cartoon that dumbs it down sufficiently for you. Sorry this one was over your head

[Rob Kramer + 696]

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I appreciate that - and where we disagree, I'm happy to keep discussing. Best case scenario, we figure out why we disagree, and a more accurate, common vision will emerge. Worst case scenario, we have fun yelling at each other like grumpy old men. Either way, everyone wins!

To be clear, I am a True Neutral. A libertarian. Professionally disinterested. My give a shit broke, and I shan't be fixing it. What people do is none of my business provided I don't have to pay for it. You want to strip down, smear yourself in grease, get high on peyote, and commune with the old gods? Knock yourself out! Just don't bitch at me when you end up starving on the street.

I think government should be the absolute last resort for anything, to be used only in case of existential threat. But ultimately, we do need some government, some laws, some strategic direction. Hence, I note that a country weaning itself off foreign energy can be good policy. This is consistent with best financial, insurance, and engineering practice: sometimes its worth paying a little more to eliminate risk. I.e. "green" initiatives could possibly be strategically savvy - but I find the "green" aspect of them intellectually deficient and uninteresting. Is there a better, free-market solution to this problem? Maybe. That's definitely worth debating; I like finding better ways to do things - but that's the extent of my opinion.

I'm also a true neutral where climate change is concerned: prove to me that it's a real issue, and I'll take it seriously. Until then, I don't care - and I'm sure as hell not paying trillions of dollars to upend the economy - an extraordinary measure - without extraordinary proof. What's my standard of proof? Bring me evidence that would be accepted in engineering, insurance, finance, or similar. The "peer reviewed" articles I've seen in academia don't cut it because I've read read them, and I've seen academia's standards. They're at best incompetent, at worst corrupt.

I'm similarly disinterested in renewable energy and EVs. I see a business case for EV dominance; I see a business case for renewables, but only in select applications. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other because I can invest in whatever I want. My only concern is understanding what is, in fact, the case.

tl;dr I'm as passionate about these topics as Louis C.K. is about rugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2hzBF2KmqE

I can agree with this without hesitation.  Guess I'll see you on the debate floor more likley at your side next time. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

How much efficiency does an NGCC plant gain by running at optimal baseload versus a normal daily ramp cycle?

I'd have to assume being that I dont run a NGCC plant. But for most engine the in efficiency is in start up , and change of speed /load. The longer you can dial in 100% load to 100% fuel supplied the more efficient it is.  Also turbines are more efficient at peak loads vs ICE piston engines working optimally at low loads and rpm. Where theres less friction.  

So if you can keep a plant at 99% within optimal efficiency with a relatively small battery it's a win win. What's the number I dont know probably a few percent. 

Do you have a reply on my previous comment ? Is there any facts about layering efficiency (on demand by design) vs trying to fix inefficiencies not on demand with much larger gaps in supply that make it more worth while to your argument? 

I've stated before in auto conversations hybrid is great and I continue to believe that. Take the best of both worlds. Not too large a battery strong tq from 0 rpm for electric, quick fuelling for gasoline and tank range a non issue, regenerative braking, on/off at a light not wearing the starter/12v battery and infrastructure pre existing and road tax not needing a re work. Smaller engine with some work storage.  Both prius and volt are more efficient that comparable non hybrid vehicles.  Usually 3-4L/100km vs 6-8L/100km. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Rob Kramer

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

34 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

I can agree with this without hesitation.  Guess I'll see you on the debate floor more likley at your side next time. 

Perhaps. Don't hesitate to call out my BS when I'm wrong though; it's only fun if I learn things.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

I'd have to assume being that I dont run a NGCC plant. But for most engine the in efficiency is in start up , and change of speed /load. The longer you can dial in 100% load to 100% fuel supplied the more efficient it is.  Also turbines are more efficient at peak loads vs ICE piston engines working optimally at low loads and rpm. Where theres less friction.  

So if you can keep a plant at 99% within optimal efficiency with a relatively small battery it's a win win. What's the number I dont know probably a few percent. 

Do you have a reply on my previous comment ? Is there any facts about layering efficiency (on demand by design) vs trying to fix inefficiencies not on demand with much larger gaps in supply that make it more worth while to your argument? 

I've stated before in auto conversations hybrid is great and I continue to believe that. Take the best of both worlds. Not too large a battery strong tq from 0 rpm for electric, quick fuelling for gasoline and tank range a non issue, regenerative braking, on/off at a light not wearing the starter/12v battery and infrastructure pre existing and road tax not needing a re work. Smaller engine with some work storage.  Both prius and volt are more efficient that comparable non hybrid vehicles.  Usually 3-4L/100km vs 6-8L/100km. 

Adding batteries to NGCC then is fairly negligible to the cost structure of NGCC, about the equivalent of the plant paying a few cents less for gas. 

Solar and wind are very different animals. Storage is nearly as valuable as the generation. When solar and wind are at maximum production they get the lowest prices (because all the other units in the region are also at max production), sometimes going to zero when curtailment occurs. Adding storage completely inverts their revenue curve by allowing them to capture all that maximum production and sell it at market peak. 

"Adding energy storage can boost solar PV project revenues by as much as 50% in the US state of Massachusetts, US developer Stem Inc has claimed". https://www.pv-tech.org/news/adding-intelligent-storage-can-boost-solar-project-revenues-by-50-stem-clai

And for meeting market shortfalls there are other storage available such as hydrogen for long term storage and imports from other areas where the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 10/21/2020 at 6:37 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Utility scale on shore wind and solar are already cheaper than new NGCC

1 watt of installed solar = ~0.33 actual watts (batteries included)

1 watt of installed gas = 1 actual watt (capacity factor determined by demand here, not a physical limitation like solar)

So you can go ahead and triple the cost for renewables to get a real comparison. @Coffeeguyzz is correct here.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

1 watt of installed solar = ~0.33 actual watts (batteries included)

1 watt of installed gas = 1 actual watt (capacity factor determined by demand here, not a physical limitation like solar)

So you can go ahead and triple the cost for renewables to get a real comparison. @Coffeeguyzz is correct here.

 

No, the costs represented by Lazard are not for nameplate they are for actual MWh produced. It is 1 to 1.