Clean Energy Is Canceling Gas Plants

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour 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. 

I'd be curious to hear a discussion of the following:
1) How low can renewable costs go? There are lower limits to everything. Even Moore's Law required fundamentally different technologies to keep up the appearance of progress.

2) How will renewables address high maintenance costs? If these remain high, the capital costs won't matter.

3) How will renewables address the gap between their claimed performance and their real-world performance?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

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?

You could also look at the EIA glossary:

Capacity factor:  The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period.

Capacity utilization:  Capacity utilization is computed by dividing production by productive capacity and multiplying by 100.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=C

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

You could also look at the EIA glossary:

Capacity factor:  The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period.

Capacity utilization:  Capacity utilization is computed by dividing production by productive capacity and multiplying by 100.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=C

That's better, but it still doesn't resolve the issue: what's the difference between "electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation" and "productive capacity"?

We need mathematically precise definitions.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That's better, but it still doesn't resolve the issue: what's the difference between "electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation" and "productive capacity"?

We need mathematically precise definitions.

There is no difference

Production capacity:  The amount of product that can be produced from processing facilities.

Productive capacity:  The maximum amount of coal that a mining operation can produce or process during a period with the existing mining equipment and/or preparation plant in place, assuming that the labor and materials sufficient to utilize the plant and equipment are available, and that the market exists for the maximum production.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

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?

How much do we use it vs how much can we use it. 

EDIT: Er wait sorry, people gave you plenty of answers. Didn't mean to pile on.

Edited October 23, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

14 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I'd be curious to hear a discussion of the following:
1) How low can renewable costs go? There are lower limits to everything. Even Moore's Law required fundamentally different technologies to keep up the appearance of progress.

2) How will renewables address high maintenance costs? If these remain high, the capital costs won't matter.

3) How will renewables address the gap between their claimed performance and their real-world performance?

1. The better question is how low do they need to go for a fully renewable grid to be lower cost than a fully meth grid. Currently fully depreciated NGCC at current meth prices are $23MWh. So for this analysis I will propose that $15MWh is the goal for renewables.

Solar and on shore wind are both at $30 so they need one more halving. At 10% per year cost reduction a halving takes only 6.5 years. On shore wind is currently at 8% and solar is at 13% annual cost reduction.

Wind's future though is off shore and that is at $80 but development there is just getting started. Off shore wind is not limited in size efficiency like on shore is. Turbine blades are as about as big as they can get and still be transported across land but that limit does not exist when they are made at a port and towed off shore. Off shore also has a much higher utilization rate / capacity factor.

The leading cost factor for wind operation appears to be blade edge degradation. That is being solved with graphene, etc. 

Solar has a much clearer path forward. Most notable are perovskites which are extremely cheap and in the lab are at 25% efficiency, matching current Si solar. Further there are exciting advances in their performance as hot carriers which have max performance at 66% https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/19/sorry-coal-66-conversion-efficiency-eyeballed-for-next-gen-hot-carrler-perovskite-solar-cells/

2.The Lazard numbers include maintenance costs.

3. Ignore the nameplate, just look at the actual performance like Lazard does. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is no difference

Production capacity:  The amount of product that can be produced from processing facilities.

Productive capacity:  The maximum amount of coal that a mining operation can produce or process during a period with the existing mining equipment and/or preparation plant in place, assuming that the labor and materials sufficient to utilize the plant and equipment are available, and that the market exists for the maximum production.

 

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

How much do we use it vs how much can we use it. 

EDIT: Er wait sorry, people gave you plenty of answers. Didn't mean to pile on.

Capacity factor fairly explicitly doesn't account for any real-world constraints. I.e. it assumes maximum production is running the plant flat-out without interruption.

The question is what "utilization factor" accounts for. Does it assume the maximum utilization is constrained by maintenance? By some expectation of repairs? By some other factor we haven't thought of? There's no way to know what, exactly, this term means without an authoritative, mathematically precise definition.

And therein lies the problem: sometimes a definition is arbitrary. We can't make assumptions about what it might mean because the people who created it might have made different assumptions. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The question is what "utilization factor" accounts for. Does it assume the maximum utilization is constrained by maintenance? By some expectation of repairs? By some other factor we haven't thought of? There's no way to know what, exactly, this term means without an authoritative, mathematically precise definition.

Do we need it for the purposes of this discussion? The simplest way for me has always been to give solar and wind a bunch of advantages on paper, then compare it to a realistic CCG plant. That way the opposing side can't complain. Wind and solar don't seem to beat gas despite having its position fortified on paper. When I did this with Jay a few months back, we had solar at 77 cents a watt with all power sold and no batteries. We also put the farm in Georgia. The CCG was forced to stay within a 66% capacity factor, and gas was at $3.00. Wombat wouldn't shut up about net present value, so I finally ran the numbers for him and he didn't like that one bit. 

 

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

This is totally STUPID!!!!! The United States has DECADES of Coal, Fossil Fuel and NG, Why because of a unproven science that I have been listening too since the 70’s WHICH HAS flip floped over and over again should we not use what we have. If technology is there for alternative’s the technology is there to use what we have DECADES of in our own Country......The wacko liberal and entertainment industry should just STFU!

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

12 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

This is totally STUPID!!!!! The United States has DECADES of Coal, Fossil Fuel and NG, Why because of a unproven science that I have been listening too since the 70’s WHICH HAS flip floped over and over again should we not use what we have. If technology is there for alternative’s the technology is there to use what we have DECADES of in our own Country......The wacko liberal and entertainment industry should just STFU!

We have eons worth of sunshine and wind within our borders. I agree let's use what we have most of.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Utilities that are transitioning away from coal are starting to view the creation of a natural gas “bridge” to renewable energy as an unnecessary step. Last week utilities in Arizona, Colorado and Florida announced plans to close one or more of their coal plants and build renewables without adding any new gas-fired generation.

Separately, staff at the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission recommended a similar gas-free transition when assessing the future capacity needs of the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM).

Renewable energy economics have been challenging the competitiveness of coal for a while now, but these latest moves indicate a greater confidence that the switch from coal to renewables can be done cost effectively and reliably without the construction of new gas fired generation as an interim step.

“Up until recently, the easy option for utilities would have been to propose using gas to replace coal. But not any longer. Rising concerns about climate change and continuing reductions in wind, solar and battery storage costs coupled with improved performance have altered the playing field,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) said.

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) both outlined their plans to skip the gas bridge as they transition away from coal in their resource plans. Meanwhile, Florida Power & Light (FPL) and Jacksonville’s municipal utility, JEA, entered into an agreement under which they will rely on existing natural gas and new solar generation to retire their jointly-owned facility, Unit 4 at Plant Scherer, the largest coal-fired plant in the US.

According to the IEEFA, to replace JEA’s share of the unit’s output, the two utilities signed a long-term, fixed-price power purchase agreement under which FPL will sell electricity to JEA from one of its exiting gas-fired generation units. Under the agreement, JEA can opt to switch to solar power at the 10-year mark.

TEP’s proposal calls for closing all of its coal-fired generation by 2031 and replacing this capacity with 2,457 MW of new wind and solar generation and 1,400 MW of battery storage. Similarly, CSU’s plan also calls for replacing coal capacity with wind, solar and storage generation. It plans to add 500 MW of new wind generation, 150 MW of new solar and 400 MW of battery capacity. To enable the early retirement of its 208 MW Martin Drake Power Plant in 2023, CSU will be installing temporary natural gas generators at the site “to ensure system reliability.” CSU said that it will remove these generators as its new renewable and storage projects are completed.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/07/02/more-utilities-bypassing-natural-gas-bridge-and-going-straight-to-renewables/

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

14 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Do we need it for the purposes of this discussion? The simplest way for me has always been to give solar and wind a bunch of advantages on paper, then compare it to a realistic CCG plant. That way the opposing side can't complain. Wind and solar don't seem to beat gas despite having its position fortified on paper. When I did this with Jay a few months back, we had solar at 77 cents a watt with all power sold and no batteries. We also put the farm in Georgia. The CCG was forced to stay within a 66% capacity factor, and gas was at $3.00. Wombat wouldn't shut up about net present value, so I finally ran the numbers for him and he didn't like that one bit.

It doesn't matter much if we're discussing renewables vs everything else. I'm more concerned about conventional vs conventional though, that being the most likely future scenario.

I'm also concerned about conversations devolving into flame wars or dancing in circles because neither party knows what the other is talking about. In my experience, this is the most common cause of conversational gridlock - and it can be completely avoided simply by defining terms.

It's also a way to keep people honest. You want to use a term? Fine - but you must prove you know what it means. No hiding behind assumed authority. No hand waving. No overwhelming people with jargon. Just define the term.

Insisting on this level of detail and precision also keeps people focused. Instead of becoming full of themselves, jumping to conclusions, and making simple logical errors, they're forced to think before they speak. The resulting conversation is of a much higher quality.

I've stated on multiple occasions that "details matter". This is a case in point:
1) Insisting on detailed definitions is necessary to be confident in our analysis.
2) Insisting on detailed definitions weeds out riffraff. Only those serious about seeking truth will invest the necessary effort.

So does it matter for the purposes of this discussion?  I would argue that it matters for the purposes of every discussion, assuming you want a quality discussion.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

and it can be completely avoided simply by defining terms.

I'm not so sure about this one. I've found that gridlock occurs more often when one party doesn't like the conclusion the discussion is heading towards 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That is being solved with graphene, etc

Oh yea, because graphene is such a practical solution to that problem. (not flaming you Jay, I just hate the way most scientists think about issue resolution). Just how much will capex increase if we start using graphene on turbines? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Oh yea, because graphene is such a practical solution to that problem. (not flaming you Jay, I just hate the way most scientists think about issue resolution). Just how much will capex increase if we start using graphene on turbines? 

The increase in capex just needs to be less than the decrease in opex. Seems like a very valid scientific problem resolution to me.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Don't forget that the cost of meth can also increase

Will this be a problem? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

Will this be a problem? 

It is for the viability of NGCC. The more NGCC cost increases the less cost needs to decrease for renewables. NGCC has very low capex, its costs are almost all fuel costs.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

It is for the viability of NGCC. The more NGCC cost increases the less cost needs to decrease for renewables. NGCC has very low capex, its costs are almost all fuel costs.

Sorry, the only definition I have for "meth" is methamphetamine. What is your definition? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

Sorry, the only definition I have for "meth" is methamphetamine. What is your definition? 

meth is short for methane

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

meth also has an injection season and a withdrawal season and can be cracked 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. BenF

The following quotes are from the EIA's 2020 LOCE/LACE report, a 22 page, eye glazing  pdf that provides extraordinarily comprehensive, granular analysis on these topics.

Definitely not for a casual observer ...

Page #1.  "Key inputs to calculating LCOE include capital costs, fuel cost, fixed and variable operations and maintence (O&M) costs, financing costs and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type".

Page #2. "Actual plant investment decisions consider ... characteristics of a project which involve many of the factors not reflected by LCOE values. One such factor is the projected utilization rate ..."

Page #7. EIA evaluated LOCE and LACE for each technology based on assumed capacity factors, which generally correspond to the high end of their likely utilization range."

 

I come back full circle and reference  Mr. McKinsey's comment above, to wit, "NGCC has very low capex, its costs are almost all fuel costs."

Pretty much dead on accurate, with a slight expansion which brings us back to the bottom of Page #12 from Lazard.

When one sees that almost half the cost of a CCGP is fuel (cough @$3.45/mmbtu cough), AND one realizes that high revenue producing electricity is produced during these tiime frames, AND when one recognizes that the operators' costs are minimal when not burning fuel ... well, it should be clear why CCGPs are being built all around the world.

All this does not even bring in the reliabiliry and dispatchability factors.

Again, at the end of 20 years - as per Lazard - the capex debt will be nil while decades more power production to be had from massive 1,000 + Megawatt plants.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

59 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

meth also has an injection season and a withdrawal season and can be cracked 

I can't decide if you're hitting the meth pipe or the crack pipe

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The increase in capex just needs to be less than the decrease in opex. Seems like a very valid scientific problem resolution to me.

I don't think it's valid at all. We can't mass produce graphene yet, and even if we could it isn't going to be cheap. I can almost guarantee that it won't justify the increase in capex. 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

This is the definition of stupidity, we have decades of fossil fuels and don’t have to be depended on any other Country, L

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Leave it to the stupid talking heads to take decades of cheap energy and say screw it, leave it in the ground!