Clean Energy Is Canceling Gas Plants

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

18 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 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.

Interesting. Thank you for that.

The difference between "utilization factor" and "capacity factor" is unclear to me. Would you point me to reliable definitions or explanations?

I didn't realize they were assuming 20 year lives for everything, which is patently absurd. There were coal plants that ran for 60+ years and were only shut down due to emissions regulations. There were repairs and upgrades along the way, but never the kind of investment required for a new facility. I wouldn't be surprised if CCGT plants can achieve the same, again with minor upgrades and repairs along the way. Meanwhile, 60 years is a de facto minimum for nuclear power plants, with 80-100 years being seriously considered. And then they're just refurbished. Nukes are only shut down when the market no longer supports them.

Wind turbines and solar panels... not so much. Wind turbines suffer from fatigue much as aircraft do. After a certain number of cycles, they're no longer safe and must be dismantled. Solar panels break down from exposure to sunlight. At some point, the maintenance costs exceeds what they're able to produce. AFAIK, there's no reasonable expectation of either of these problems being solved.

This raises a finance question though: do the decision makers care what happens after 20 years? According to the finance people, they shouldn't; discount rates make long time scales irrelevant. But does the current (and probably perpetual) low-interest environment change that? Will the decision makers ignore those numbers because they know 40-80 year facilities will decrease capital outlays? How does this actually work? 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Assuming wind and solar achieve the capacity factors predicted, which they won't. Also assuming they're given preferential treatment when bidding into markets, which implies that they're subsidized by conventional generation. Oh, and they must produce electricity when it's needed - not when the sun happens to be shining and the wind happens to be blowing. This also won't happen.

"But we can store it in batteries and build redundant generation to achieve a renewable grid!" That costs money. Lazard didn't calculate those costs.

There was a famous academic paper in which a researcher "proved" that the US could run on a renewable grid, and I had the opportunity to discuss the paper with him. I asked him how much his proposed system would cost. Not only had he not calculated the cost, but he also became immediately hostile. How dare I ask about something so pedestrian as cost? I've received the same reaction from everyone promoting renewables: no clue about the true cost, no intention of calculating it, and hostility to divert attention from their ignorance. They have no credibility.

When I see licensed professional engineers who make investment decisions telling me high percentages of renewables can be cheaply integrated into the grid in their geographic region of responsibility, I'll believe it. The analyses coming out of academia and outfits like Lazard have been cleverly dishonest at best.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

 

13 hours 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. 

This is correct. A conventional power plant would see significant, predictable improvements from a mere 1-4 hours of battery storage. This is the case with the Hornsdale plant in Australia, which is essentially backup for a conventional grid. What we're really doing here is replacing simple-cycle natural gas turbines with batteries; we already knew that made economic sense.

A mostly-renewable grid would require 24-48 hours of battery storage to ensure reliability - an investment 6-12X greater than if we're complementing conventional generation. Lazard didn't calculate that. So sure, adding 4ish hours of storage to a renewable installation adds a lot of value to that installation - but that doesn't achieve grid reliability. You're still relying on conventional generation to subsidize renewables. Get rid of the conventional generation, and you don't have reliable power - much less cheap power.

The next argument is that we can combine renewables from different geographic areas to achieve reliability. You can, but now you have two other costs to deal with:
1) More transmission
2) Redundant renewables

Any way we analyze it, renewables require so much capital investment they simply can't compete with conventional. Renewables are a niche, and there's no roadmap to them becoming more than that.

The argument I haven't seen yet is nuclear, which thrives when run flat-out. By comparison, coal and natural gas see significant fuel costs. If we have batteries filling the daily demand trough and shaving the daily demand peak, we've created an environment where more nuclear makes sense.

For the moment, NGCC is cheaper than nuclear under most circumstances, so that's what will be built. I'll be watching though. The next generation of nuclear power, the price of NG, and the rapid build-out of battery storage may change that.

 

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Daily ramp cycle? Not much difference. The efficiency loss would probably come from warming up the bottoming cycle. Once it's warm, the plant does fairly well. Constant cycling to keep up with renewable generation? Potentially massive efficiency loss.

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

That's not how a battery works. If you design a system (nat gas and battery working as commanded) with a 50kwh battery that will fill  off peak and drain daily on peak  (there is now no on and off peak) and you get 100% of battery use not a dollar overspent or unused. So now solar has no on and off peak to sell to. Now with solar or wind  the battery is far oversized: on less sun/ or some shade days or less wind the battery is only used to 80% capacity and now you have a battery that's 20% overpriced.  Also you need enough solar and wind + battery for full days without so your battery and system has grown where NG system has shrunk. 

So as the example of a hybrid car as its has a reliable engine behind it : it cacan then therefor use the full capacity of the battery without worry. And like an EV you need a battery 10+ x larger than a hybrid because there is no backup so despite a customer needing what 100km a day they need to buy a battery of 500km in a gasoline or hybrid you could have a 100km tank (if it was more costly to have a bigger tank) and bring jerry cans because tanks ARE cheap. Also cheaper EV motors and batteries really bolster the Hybrid vehicles sales. (As it would the Nat gas + Storage model) 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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. 

"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

 

Say that to Hybrid vehicles.  A few percent more efficient AND allowing a much smaller engine for the work load is where the fuel savings are. 

Smaller turbines and generators would have lower (by some ammount) bearing drag /friction losses . Also a smaller facility may offset the small(er) battery . Not an additional cost . 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

@BenFranklin'sSpectacles

I see were in agreement already. Sorry I pretty well copied your reply in a different way because I didn't see it. 

I was actually wondering about nuclear (removing fuel costs and smaller = more safe) and you knew where its efficient.  Hybrid definitely works because you can design it too. Wonder if battery storage will be added and some plants closed (probably coal).keep minimal maintenance staff. But is that a job loss to technology? - probably majority . 

Also I've seen the average lifetime for wind is 12 years. It was a circulating graph on twitter . 

[NickW + 2,714]

This provides some interesting data on efficiencies of some common model OCGT and CCGT at different loads.

https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/technical-comparisons/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-part-load-efficiency-and-flexibility#:~:text=The efficiencies of CCGTs drop below 50 percent,less than 30 percent efficiency at half load.

EX. GE 7FA CCGT

40% Load - 47.3% eff

50% Load - 48.6%

70% Load - 50.6%

90% Load - 53.2%

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Say I spend one billion dollars on some theoretical power system that produces 10 continuous watts. Let's say it has no fuel cost. If it has no fuel cost, it beats NGCC on a cost per MWh generated basis right? 

What I need to know is how fast capital is being paid off in comparison to a gas plant. Do they factor interest payments into the cost of production for all systems listed? 

I need to edit this to make my point more clear.

You can say that solar and wind spend less to produce the same amount of electricity, but that doesn't mean your returns are better. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The difference between "utilization factor" and "capacity factor" is unclear to me. Would you point me to reliable definitions or explanations?

Big disclaimer here, I'm only guessing.

I believe this relates to the physical limitations of the plant vs deliberate output from the plant. A solar farm isn't capable of averaging 50% of its nameplate capacity all year long because of physical limitations. A gas plant can, but doesn't because of operator decisions related to demand and power pricing. 

Somebody on here pointed to a so called 60% capacity factor for CCG, but this was incorrect. That 60% was the utilization factor. A CCG is perfectly capable of running at 100%, all of the time. The issue is whether or not the demand for that 100% exists 24/7, and it doesn't. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Say I spend one billion dollars on some theoretical power system that produces 10 continuous watts. Let's say it has no fuel cost. If it has no fuel cost, it beats NGCCG on a cost per MWh generated basis right? 

What I need to know is how fast capital is being paid off in comparison to a gas plant. Do they factor interest payments into the cost of production for all systems listed? 

Well yes - I believe in  finance discounted return rates the cost of capital (ie interest) is worked into the calculation

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

24 minutes ago, NickW said:

Well yes - I believe in  finance discounted return rates the cost of capital (ie interest) is worked into the calculation

That's good. Though I'm concerned as to what number we're dividing income by. Am I correct in saying that we'd need 3000 MW of solar and batteries to meet 1000 MW of continuous demand (approx)?

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. McKinsey 

Regarding the 20 year debt amortization ('economic  life') situation ...

Yes, of course Lazard uses this metric to 'levelize' the financials (capital costs) across the power generating spectrum.

What I pointed out - and continue to stress to any and everyone in these discussions - is the Real World context within so much info is displayed.

At the end of 20 years, Mr. McKinsey, a wind farm is at the end of its useful life. (They actually have a 1.6%  annual 'decline rate' due to wear and tear.)

In contrast, at the end of the 20 year payout/amortization timeframe, a 1,000 Mw CCGP will be able to  continue to produce 1,000 Mw reliably, on demand, for another 20/30/40 years.

Big difference.

 

I will follow up in a bit on your comment "This represents an extreme systems level of efficiency" in referring to the Empire offshore wind boondoggle 30 to 50 miles offshore Long Island.

The 2 projects, Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind will have nameplate capacity of 1,700 Mw, will deliver at an average  ~815 Mwh rate over 1 year's time (48% capacity factor), intermittently, and cost ratepayers over $8 Billion.

For context/contrast, the just-opened Cricket Valley CCGP plant (1,100 Megawatt nameplate capacity), can  deliver at a 1,100 Mwh hour rate 24/7 - if desired - and costs ratepayers ZERO as it is privately  funded.

More to follow.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Coffeeguyzz

[NickW + 2,714]

7 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That's good. Though I'm concerned as to what number we're dividing income by. Am I correct in saying that we'd need 3000 MW of solar and batteries to meet 1000 MW of continuous demand (approx)?

depends where you are. Somewhere like western Oz or California the solar availability generally tracks demand over the year so you only need capacity to cover overnight and a bit of reserve. When I lived in OZ winter output was about 60% of summer output which works well as peaks are usually driven by air con demand. Even there you are talking 4KW of solar capacity to deliver 1KW equivalent continously. 

Somewhere like the UK  the solar panel output in December is only about 16% of what it is in June / July so solar only really works in combination with other renewables. In the Uk wind is predominant in winter so does to some degree have a balancing effect. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Somebody on here pointed to a so called 60% capacity factor for CCG, but this was incorrect. That 60% was the utilization factor. A CCG is perfectly capable of running at 100%, all of the time. The issue is whether or not the demand for that 100% exists 24/7, and it doesn't. 

Minor detail: conventional power plants are limited to 85-95% utilization factor due to maintenance and refit requirements. 85% is achievable by coal and CCGT. 90-92% is achievable by Gen III nuclear. Gen IV nuclear could possibly achieve 95-97% due to going 5+ years between refueling and exceptionally high quality/reliability standards. Nuclear hits those quality and reliability standards to meet NRC regulations. Absent such regulations, the investment to achieve 95+% may-or-may-not make financial sense.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. BenF, Mr. KeyboardW,

Mr. KW pretty much nailed it.

As my explanatory skills are abominable, apologies ahead of time for this (overly) simplistic description ...

Using, for 2 contrasting examples, a 100 Megawatt nameplate capacity windfarm (10 turbines, 10 Megawatt each, say) and a routine 1,000 Megawatt nameplate capacity Combined Cycle Gas Plant ...

Our windfarm can, theoretically, produce 100 Megawatt HOURS in a 1 hour period.

Throughout a  full day, this equates to 2,400 Megawatt HOURS from our whirleys.

As Real World numbers show, the annual output from onshore windfarms is only 35% of what - theoretically - can be produced, and 48% of same from offshore whirleys. (Numbers from EIA & Orsted).

So, our 100 Mw windfarm - designed to produce 2,400 Megawatthours in a day, actually only produces 840. The bulk of which comes at night/early AM when it is least needed, and predominately  in the 'shoulder' seasons of spring and fall when, again, demand (and prices) are lowest.

This is capacity factor as applied to our onshore windfarm.

 

August, 2019, had <27% output from US windfarms ... the highest demand month in the country.

 

Now, our 1,000 Megawatt CCGP is able to produce 24,000 Megawatt HOURS in a day if called upon to do so, but there is (usually) no need.

If, as an example, during the high demand time windows of 7:00 AM to noon and 3:00 PM to 10:00 PM, our CCGP is cranking (being utilized), it will put out at 100% of its nameplate for only these 12 hours of the day.

50% time  utilization running at 100% of its capability.

This accomplishes several things.

First, it captures the highest revenues the market offers. This is in 5 minute increments as determined by region system operators. New England's ISO site (recently revamped) is a pretty good site to follow in these matters.

Second, if the market needs more juice (cloudy day, cold, no wind, high res/com/industrial activities), just stay online longer hours.

Easy peasy.

During slack time, plants ramp down, minimal crews go get coffee, play vidya, whatever. This is why those charts on Page #12 from Lazard are so instructive. These plants cost peanuts to operate when not generating revenue/burning fuel. As ramp times are measured in minutes, the flexibility is exceptionally high.

The term "capacity factor" is akin, IMHO, to the term 'condensate' in the hydrocarbon world, that is, different shades of meaning can be/are applied by different parties (frequently  ones with agendas).

 

Hope this helps somewhat.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Minor detail: conventional power plants are limited to 85-95% utilization factor due to maintenance and refit requirements. 85% is achievable by coal and CCGT. 90-92% is achievable by Gen III nuclear. Gen IV nuclear could possibly achieve 95-97% due to going 5+ years between refueling and exceptionally high quality/reliability standards. Nuclear hits those quality and reliability standards to meet NRC regulations. Absent such regulations, the investment to achieve 95+% may-or-may-not make financial sense.

Thanks! Good to know.

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

@BenFranklin'sSpectacles

I see were in agreement already. Sorry I pretty well copied your reply in a different way because I didn't see it. 

I was actually wondering about nuclear (removing fuel costs and smaller = more safe) and you knew where its efficient.  Hybrid definitely works because you can design it too. Wonder if battery storage will be added and some plants closed (probably coal).keep minimal maintenance staff. But is that a job loss to technology? - probably majority . 

Also I've seen the average lifetime for wind is 12 years. It was a circulating graph on twitter . 

My previous comment noted that by raising the demand floor and shaving peaks, battery storage both reduces demand for NG peaking plants and increases demand for base load generation. This obviously has benefits for nuclear, but I didn't address whether that benefit tilts the economics in favor of nuclear.

The problem is that increased base load also favors coal and NGCC. It favors nuclear the most, but is that enough? It depends on technology advances and the price of fuel. We've already seen utilities run NG as base load and coal intermittently because NG costs temporarily plunged lower than coal costs. Neither will plunge as low as nuclear fuel costs though; that's just impossible. That means we need to look at capital costs. Coal is stuck; there is no upcoming technology promising to reduce coal capital costs. NGCC is in the lead, and NG oxy-fuel combustion promises to lower capital costs even further. Meanwhile, nuclear has much room for improvement, and a gaggle of companies are working on it.

So what happens in the near future? NG peaking plants get decimated by battery storage while coal, NG, and nuclear continue to fight among themselves. As yet, there's no clear winner; only different markets that favor different solutions. We'll have to wait and see. 

As for wind, I had not considered the cost of maintenance, the effects of a lack of maintenance, or the effects of the production tax credit (PTC) on maintenance practices. It turns out wind operators are letting their turbines go to hell once their PTC runs out. Without the subsidy, even a built turbine isn't worth the maintenance costs:
https://docs.wind-watch.org/performance-age-us.pdf

Lazard can say whatever it wants about wind power economics; real-world experience is indicating that they're expensive. On the plus side, the rapid production decline of wind turbines means they won't interfere in power markets much longer. Good riddance.

It's also interesting that the PTC expired in 2012 before being retroactively renewed. The result was a flurry of construction activity followed by a catastrophic decline in new wind. The PTC expired again end of 2019, and we saw the same flurry of activity; it will be interesting to see if there's a catastrophic decline in 2020.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39472

Edited October 23, 2020 by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Typo.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

This provides some interesting data on efficiencies of some common model OCGT and CCGT at different loads.

https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/technical-comparisons/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-part-load-efficiency-and-flexibility#:~:text=The efficiencies of CCGTs drop below 50 percent,less than 30 percent efficiency at half load.

EX. GE 7FA CCGT

40% Load - 47.3% eff

50% Load - 48.6%

70% Load - 50.6%

90% Load - 53.2%

The newest CCGT's (I.e. the ones being built) can achieve 63% thermal efficiency. Am I to believe that between 90% and 100% load, there's a 10% difference in thermal efficiency - or is this information out of date?

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. NickW,

Thanks for posting the Wartsila link.

That is one amazing company, along with umpteen other companies continuing to innovate in this dizzyingly rapid pace of change in today's world.

Wartsila focuses on Combustion Engines/Reciprocating  Engines, so they have a bit of competitive motivation to present the aerodynamic turbines in a somewhat less than flattering light. (Using GE's 7F turbines rather than the 7HAs, perhaps).

 

Wartsila is having a HUGE impact on the marine industry with their power plants involving LNG. They just set up in Benin, in modular fashion, a series 7 18 Mw generators fueled by an FSRU.

This will be a model for electric buildout across the globe in underserved markets. Hardware will be tailored to fit demand.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

This provides some interesting data on efficiencies of some common model OCGT and CCGT at different loads.

https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/technical-comparisons/combustion-engine-vs-gas-turbine-part-load-efficiency-and-flexibility#:~:text=The efficiencies of CCGTs drop below 50 percent,less than 30 percent efficiency at half load.

EX. GE 7FA CCGT

40% Load - 47.3% eff

50% Load - 48.6%

70% Load - 50.6%

90% Load - 53.2%

I was pretty close in saying a few percentage points . Thanks for this very cool. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Assuming wind and solar achieve the capacity factors predicted, which they won't. Also assuming they're given preferential treatment when bidding into markets, which implies that they're subsidized by conventional generation. Oh, and they must produce electricity when it's needed - not when the sun happens to be shining and the wind happens to be blowing. This also won't happen.

"But we can store it in batteries and build redundant generation to achieve a renewable grid!" That costs money. Lazard didn't calculate those costs.

There was a famous academic paper in which a researcher "proved" that the US could run on a renewable grid, and I had the opportunity to discuss the paper with him. I asked him how much his proposed system would cost. Not only had he not calculated the cost, but he also became immediately hostile. How dare I ask about something so pedestrian as cost? I've received the same reaction from everyone promoting renewables: no clue about the true cost, no intention of calculating it, and hostility to divert attention from their ignorance. They have no credibility.

When I see licensed professional engineers who make investment decisions telling me high percentages of renewables can be cheaply integrated into the grid in their geographic region of responsibility, I'll believe it. The analyses coming out of academia and outfits like Lazard have been cleverly dishonest at best.

The costs of building a fully renewable system today is very expensive. But those costs keep decreasing exponentially and as they do renewables will gain market share. If the curves stop then renewable growth will stop. But if the curves continue then that fully renewable grid will be lower cost than a fully fossil fuel grid. 

[Bob D + 562]

Pretty soon the wind and sun will pay us to create power

[Rob Kramer + 696]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The costs of building a fully renewable system today is very expensive. But those costs keep decreasing exponentially and as they do renewables will gain market share. If the curves stop then renewable growth will stop. But if the curves continue then that fully renewable grid will be lower cost than a fully fossil fuel grid. 

Well just from an observation. 

Hydro dams are one off . So costs are fixed to the situation.  

Wind is what aluminum poles concrete base with a generator and fiberglass blades. So labour and materials are relatively fixed and the generators are as efficient as there gonna get or damn near. So labour is probably the biggest variable. 

PV is close to real life peak but layering different tech might increase efficiency. And manufacturing and applications may vary . Also can materials . So PV is really the only generation equipment that can see continued price decline. 

Batteries / storage is the main tech that can come down but as I said it can help both parties. It's just needed for renewables to be somewhat reliable without fossil.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

47 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Well just from an observation. 

Hydro dams are one off . So costs are fixed to the situation.  

Wind is what aluminum poles concrete base with a generator and fiberglass blades. So labour and materials are relatively fixed and the generators are as efficient as there gonna get or damn near. So labour is probably the biggest variable. 

PV is close to real life peak but layering different tech might increase efficiency. And manufacturing and applications may vary . Also can materials . So PV is really the only generation equipment that can see continued price decline. 

Batteries / storage is the main tech that can come down but as I said it can help both parties. It's just needed for renewables to be somewhat reliable without fossil.

Don't forget that the cost of meth can also increase. As battery costs decrease EV's will take over and the amount of free associated gas being produced will decrease. There is also the cost of capital to be considered which is increasing for fossil fuels and decreasing for renewables.

Solar and wind cost curves may be slowing but they are far from stopping. Meanwhile meth has bottomed out.  Batteries only increase efficiency by a few percent for NGCC which is the equivalent of paying a few percent less for gas and this is a one time decrease. Very negligible in the grand scheme.

Solar decreased in cost by 13% last year and wind by 8% and they are going to decrease more over the coming year, and the year after that and so on for a very long time.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

The term "capacity factor" is akin, IMHO, to the term 'condensate' in the hydrocarbon world, that is, different shades of meaning can be/are applied by different parties (frequently  ones with agendas).

Hope this helps somewhat.

Your explanation of wind utilization factor is instructive and matches my understanding; thanks for that.

I'm still confused on the difference between utilization factor and capacity factor. The definitions on wikipedia lack sufficient detail to distinguish between them, and you've indicated that they may not be well-defined. Should we just agree to use them interchangeably? Could we establish our own definitions for the purposes of this forum?

@Tom Kirkman and @Jan van Eck, is there a precedent for handling ambiguities like this?