Clean Energy Is Canceling Gas Plants

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

13 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

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. 

Graphene was discovered only 16 years ago and you are writing it off? We can't mass produce graphene efficiently today but what about in 10 years? or 16 years? You tout the multi decade life of NGCC but discount the multi decade advancement of competing tech. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

17 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

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

We don't depend on other countries for sunshine or wind.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

Graphene was discovered only 16 years ago and you are writing it off? We can't mass produce graphene efficiently today but what about in 10 years? or 16 years? You tout the multi decade life of NGCC but discount the multi decade advancement of competing tech. 

My issue with these things is that we've taken the wrong path to clean energy, and instead of choosing a different path we insist on expensive/complicated solutions to make this path work. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

My issue with these things is that we've taken the wrong path to clean energy, and instead of choosing a different path we insist on expensive/complicated solutions to make this path work. 

The benefits of graphene go far beyond just renewable energy. We tried nuclear, costs went up not down. Carbon capture has been an expensive failure. Meanwhile the expensive complicated solar wind battery solution matrix is rapidly undercutting the price of new build fossil fuels and in a few years will under cut full depreciated fossil fuels even at today's low fuel costs. 

btw I will again point out that Lazard included analysis for NGCC costs at $2.60 for meth, which is very realistic, and new build solar wind were still cheaper than new build NGCC. And once more - batteries solve the intermittency problem and their costs continue to decrease by 49% every three years. Longer duration intermittency is solved by other developing storage methods and HVDC transmission which is also decreasing in cost. Meth is not getting any cheaper than it is this year.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The benefits of graphene go far beyond just renewable energy. We tried nuclear, costs went up not down. Carbon capture has been an expensive failure. Meanwhile the expensive complicated solar wind battery solution matrix is rapidly undercutting the price of new build fossil fuels and in a few years will under cut full depreciated fossil fuels even at today's low fuel costs. 

btw I will again point out that Lazard included analysis for NGCC costs at $2.60 for meth, which is very realistic, and new build solar wind were still cheaper than new build NGCC. And once more - batteries solve the intermittency problem and their costs continue to decrease by 49% every three years. Longer duration intermittency is solved by other developing storage methods and HVDC transmission which is also decreasing in cost. Meth is not getting any cheaper than it is this year.

All kinds of claims in there that we've argued against for months, so I can't simply accept them as a refute for "we're on the wrong path".

I'll bet on where Gen IV reactors stand in 16 years. I understand that graphene is useful for a myriad of things, but surely you understand that banking on it to fix wind's current problems might not be pragmatic. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

All about opportunity cost. What can graphene do for reactors instead of wind or solar? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

All about opportunity cost. What can graphene do for reactors instead of wind or solar? 

I have no idea, maybe it will solve the fusion containment problem which would be terrific.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

17 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

All kinds of claims in there that we've argued against for months, so I can't simply accept them as a refute for "we're on the wrong path".

I'll bet on where Gen IV reactors stand in 16 years. I understand that graphene is useful for a myriad of things, but surely you understand that banking on it to fix wind's current problems might not be pragmatic. 

4th time is the charm I suppose. This is why we went down the solar wind battery path because the first 3 generations of nuclear failed. So you are banking on technology that hasn't gotten out of the lab yet. Meanwhile solar wind and batteries are very much in full production.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

4th time is the charm I suppose. This is why we went down the solar wind battery path because the first 3 generations of nuclear failed. So you are banking on technology that hasn't gotten out of the lab yet. Meanwhile solar wind and batteries are very much in full production.

It's important to ask the question "why did they fail?". 

I ask "Why does France have some of the cheapest power in Europe?".

Generation four isn't stuck in the lab, for your information. Yes they're in the testing phase, but there's several models operating around the world, with improvements being made yearly. 

I, and many others, have penciled out the numbers for wind, solar, and batteries repeatedly. It doesn't compete with what nuclear could be without all the BS thrown at it by the public and the government. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

It's important to ask the question "why did they fail?". 

I ask "Why does France have some of the cheapest power in Europe?".

Generation four isn't stuck in the lab, for your information. Yes they're in the testing phase, but there's several models operating around the world, with improvements being made yearly. 

I, and many others, have penciled out the numbers for wind, solar, and batteries repeatedly. It doesn't compete with what nuclear could be without all the BS thrown at it by the public and the government. 

France isn't building anymore nuclear reactors, instead they are planning on shutting them down. EPR has been an unmitigated disaster. Even if it is ever completed the cost of electricity from it will be around $90MWh. 

In the testing phase means it is still stuck in the lab. 

All that solar wind battery BS you mention is far far less than what has been thrown at nuclear over the past 70 years! And your nuclear cost numbers are just made up based on your hopes and wishes. in the real world I will again point out Flamville and Hinkley, did you include these in your doodlings?

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

France isn't building anymore nuclear reactors, instead they are planning on shutting them down. EPR has been an unmitigated disaster. Even if it is ever completed the cost of electricity from it will be around $90MWh. 

 

France is under Macron's direction. Obviously he's going to push for more wind and solar developments, but he wants to preserve 50% of nuclear capacity. Mind you, they're shutting down old reactors and are looking into modern developments (such as Gen IV).

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In the testing phase means it is still stuck in the lab. 

Read this page for a description on what these reactors are and which ones are in operation. 

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All that solar wind battery BS you mention is far far less than what has been thrown at nuclear over the past 70 years!

Show me where protestors have delayed construction of a solar farm and increased its cost, then we'll talk.

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And your nuclear cost numbers are just made up based on your hopes and wishes. in the real world I will again point out Flamville and Hinkley, did you include these in your doodlings?

I haven't mentioned any numbers on the cost of nuclear systems yet. I understand that costs are high, but did you know that construction delays account for 25% of final cost? Perhaps the protestors are to blame for that figure, I can't say for 100% certain. I don't appreciate pretentious comments like that. I've demonstrated to you before how easy it is to figure out the net present value of a solar or wind farm in 15 years. I don't find it to be very attractive investment wise. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Jay McKinsey

Since I arrived at Rapid Tech in August, I've been organizing a solar project back home. The tax credit and depreciation justifies the project, but without those incentives I know for sure that it wouldn't work. I'm not totally anti solar. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

14 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

 

France is under Macron's direction. Obviously he's going to push for more wind and solar developments, but he wants to preserve 50% of nuclear capacity. Mind you, they're shutting down old reactors and are looking into modern developments (such as Gen IV).

Read this page for a description on what these reactors are and which ones are in operation. 

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx

Show me where protestors have delayed construction of a solar farm and increased its cost, then we'll talk.

I haven't mentioned any numbers on the cost of nuclear systems yet. I understand that costs are high, but did you know that construction delays account for 25% of final cost? Perhaps the protestors are to blame for that figure, I can't say for 100% certain. I don't appreciate pretentious comments like that. I've demonstrated to you before how easy it is to figure out the net present value of a solar or wind farm in 15 years. I don't find it to be very attractive investment wise. 

Preserve 50% of nuclear for now. It is silly to do like Germany did and kill them all right away, the transition occurs over many years. The real measure is whether they are intent on building more. And right now there is no intent to do so even if they continue to spend some funds on R&D. 

What makes you think I hadn't already read that page? None of those reactors are in commercial operation and most aren't even close to a prototype stage. 

Protestors are a very real cost in a free society, whether you like it or not. But I'm not aware of any protesters causing delays at Flamville or Hinkley. However there are many other issues documented such as bad welds causing a three year delay at Flamville.

You did mention the relative costs of nuclear plants by saying that they would be less than renewables if BS hadn't been thrown to renewables. Nuclear is clearly a worse investment than renewables.

So let's deduct that 25% cost you are claiming for people to express their opinons, that would make the electricity out of Flaminville cost only $70MWh.  

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

14 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@Jay McKinsey

Since I arrived at Rapid Tech in August, I've been organizing a solar project back home. The tax credit and depreciation justifies the project, but without those incentives I know for sure that it wouldn't work. I'm not totally anti solar. 

Like we explored 6 months ago, solar does not work everywhere at this time. But as costs go down its scope increases. 

That is great to hear that you are organizing a solar project. Where is it may I ask? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Preserve 50% of nuclear for now. It is silly to do like Germany did and kill them all right away, the transition occurs over many years. The real measure is whether they are intent on building more. And right now there is no intent to do so even if they continue to spend some funds on R&D. 

What makes you think I hadn't already read that page? None of those reactors are in commercial operation and most aren't even close to a prototype stage. 

Protestors are a very real cost in a free society, whether you like it or not. But I'm not aware of any protesters causing delays at Flamville or Hinkley. However there are many other issues documented such as bad welds causing a three year delay at Flamville.

You did mention the relative costs of nuclear plants by saying that they would be less than renewables if BS hadn't been thrown to renewables. Nuclear is clearly a worse investment than renewables.

So let's deduct that 25% cost you are claiming for people to express their opinons, that would make the electricity out of Flaminville cost only $70MWh.  

 

I have no issue with protests and free speech, but I think it's important to recognize that cost increases from protests are a source of trouble. It just demonstrates that not all of the added cost is from the nature of the energy solution. What about policy and changing regulations? Those add cost, and are also unrelated to the nature of the solution. The safety features of the new models will be a selling point, since they'll meet requirements from the start and not halfway through construction. 

As per my statement on the cost of plants. I think I can demonstrate this by pointing to the fact that we've successfully built many plants in the United States before the public backlash. I think this gives sufficient reason to say that without the current public reputation and regulatory environment, nuclear could meet proper budget requirements and complete construction on time. 

You're betting that the cost of wind and solar will decline. That's perfectly reasonable. Now, referring to what I said in the last paragraph, why can't I bet that the cost of nuclear will decline with the necessary changes? It then becomes the case of comparing the ideal solar farm and the ideal nuclear plant. I believe that if nuclear stayed within planned budgets, the economics would be more attractive than future wind/solar projects. 

What if we take a look at the economics of existing plants? They'd be older, of course, but that gives an argumentative advantage in favor of solar/wind, and I think that they'd be a good indicator of what these systems are supposed to cost without public reputation and regulations getting in the way.

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Like we explored 6 months ago, solar does not work everywhere at this time. But as costs go down its scope increases. 

That is great to hear that you are organizing a solar project. Where is it may I ask? 

Minnesota. The state where it makes the least amount of sense to have panels. If the farm were in Arizona, I could squeak by without depreciation, but I'd still need the tax credit. 

Oh, and my bid will have to be somewhere in the range of $40/MWh

Edited October 25, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I have no issue with protests and free speech, but I think it's important to recognize that cost increases from protests are a source of trouble. It just demonstrates that not all of the added cost is from the nature of the energy solution. What about policy and changing regulations? Those add cost, and are also unrelated to the nature of the solution. The safety features of the new models will be a selling point, since they'll meet requirements from the start and not halfway through construction. 

As per my statement on the cost of plants. I think I can demonstrate this by pointing to the fact that we've successfully built many plants in the United States before the public backlash. I think this gives sufficient reason to say that without the current public reputation and regulatory environment, nuclear could meet proper budget requirements and complete construction on time. 

You're betting that the cost of wind and solar will decline. That's perfectly reasonable. Now, referring to what I said in the last paragraph, why can't I bet that the cost of nuclear will decline with the necessary changes? It then becomes the case of comparing the ideal solar farm and the ideal nuclear plant. I believe that if nuclear stayed within planned budgets, the economics would be more attractive than future wind/solar projects. 

What if we take a look at the economics of existing plants? They'd be older, of course, but that gives an argumentative advantage in favor of solar/wind, and I think that they'd be a good indicator of what these systems are supposed to cost without public reputation and regulations getting in the way.

 

I completely agree that unregulated nuclear plants that don't have to pay for safety measures or waste disposal are dirt cheap and yes they would meet budget requirements and complete construction on time. The problem is that those are very real costs that have to be accounted for, ignoring them is pointless. Just because you got your plant online on time and on budget doesn't mean much if it melts down three months later (three mile island). Public reputation is a very real cost as the public is the market and the most basic function of a market is to convey the level of demand (market sentiment) to producers.

You can absolutely bet on the costs of next gen nuclear decreasing and maybe it will, I am not against safe nuclear. However, it has no track record of cost reduction. The three top contenders for gen 4 success have been in development with operational prototypes for many decades and none have gone anywhere. The fact that there are so many competing concepts for gen 4 tells you that no single platform has any momentum. 

I am also a proponent of keeping the existing nuclear plants online until at least coal is eradicated. I concede that solar wind are still more costly than depreciated nuclear or NGCC. However they are less expensive than new build for either. 

Let me just emphasize the lack of advancement on gen 4. The top three contenders are 

Sodium cooled reactor

Sodium-cooled reactors have included, oh okay the Chernobyl boys have two in supposed commercial operation which upon further reading exist to destroy weapon grade plutonium:

Model	Country	Thermal power (MW)	Electric power (MW)	Year of commission	Year of decommission	Notes
BN-350	Soviet Union		135	1973	1999	Was used to power a water de-salination plant.
BN-600	Soviet Union	1470	600	1980	Operational	Together with the BN-800, one of only two commercial fast reactors in the world.
BN-800	Soviet Union/ Russia	2100	880	2015	Operational	Together with the BN-600, one of only two commercial fast reactors in the world.
BN-1200	Russia	2900	1220	2036	Not yet constructed	In development. Will be followed by BN-1200M as a model for export.
CEFR	China	65	20	2012	Operational
CRBRP	United States	1000	350	Never built	Never built
EBR-1	United States	1.4	0.2	1950	1964
EBR-2	United States	62.5	20	1965	1994
Fermi 1	United States	200	69	1963	1975
Sodium Reactor Experiment	United States	20	65	1957	1964
S1G	United States					United States naval reactors
S2G	United States					United States naval reactors
PFR	United Kingdom	500	250	1974	1994
FBTR	India	40	13.2	1985	Operational
PFBR	India		500	2020	Under construction	Under construction
Monju	Japan	714	280	1995/2010	2010	Suspended for 15 years. Reactivated in 2010, then permanently closed
Jōyō	Japan	150		1971	Operational
SNR-300	Germany		327	1985	1991
Rapsodie	France	40	24	1967	1983
Phénix	France	590	250	1973	2010
Superphénix	France	3000	1242	1986	1997	Largest SFR ever built. Suffered a terrorist attack during its construction.

Most of these were experimental plants, which are no longer operational

Molten Salt Reactors

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) took the lead in researching MSRs through the 1960s. Much of their work culminated with the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). MSRE was a 7.4 MW_th test reactor simulating the neutronic "kernel" of a type of epithermal thorium molten salt breeder reactor called the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR). The large (expensive) breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

2Commercial/national/international projects

• 2.1Canada
• 2.2China
• 2.3Denmark
• 2.4France
• 2.5Germany
• 2.6India
• 2.7Indonesia
• 2.8Japan
• 2.9Russia
• 2.10United Kingdom
• 2.11United States

Result - nothing close to commercial production

Very High Temperature

The HTGR design was first proposed by the staff of the Power Pile Division of the Clinton Laboratories (known now as Oak Ridge National Laboratory^[1]) in 1947.^[2] Professor Rudolf Schulten in Germany also played a role in development during the 1950s. Peter Fortescue, whilst at General Atomic, was leader of the team responsible for the initial development of the High temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), as well as the Gas-cooled Fast Reactor (GCFR) system. ^[3]

The Peach Bottom reactor in the United States was the first HTGR to produce electricity, and did so very successfully, with operation from 1966 through 1974 as a technology demonstrator. Fort St. Vrain Generating Station was one example of this design that operated as an HTGR from 1979 to 1989. Though the reactor was beset by some problems which led to its decommissioning due to economic factors, it served as proof of the HTGR concept in the United States (though no new commercial HTGRs have been developed there since).^{[4][failed verification]}

HTGRs have also existed in the United Kingdom (the Dragon reactor) and Germany (AVR reactor and THTR-300), and currently exist in Japan (the High-temperature engineering test reactor using prismatic fuel with 30 MW_th of capacity) and China (the HTR-10, a pebble-bed design with 10 MW_e of generation). Two full-scale pebble-bed HTGRs, the HTR-PM reactors, each with 100 MW of electrical production capacity, are under construction in China as of 2019.

Maybe the Chinese have it figured out...

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/23/2020 at 6:33 PM, Coffeeguyzz said:

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.

Complete nonsense. Wind farms are not designed to produce their design maximum output  every day. 

Prior to building a farm, long term wind speeds for the sites are analysed. From this the most appropriate models of turbines should be chosen. 

For a given model the annual capacity factor is established with a standard deviation to account for annual variation in winds. 

So a 100MW Windfarm with an anticipated capacity factor of 30% will produce 263 Gwh a year (+ SD XX). On any given day the turbine farm could produce between 0 and 2.4 Gwh. Further analysis of long term wind speeds will give the likelihood of outputs for given times of the year. 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 10/24/2020 at 2:28 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

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 

These are exactly the people I weed out by following a rigorous process. If the definitions and mathematics are set in stone, cultists can't wiggle out of conclusions. They know this; that's why definitions make them uncomfortable. With enough precision, one can flush them oout and then nail them to the wall with their own stupidity.

The thing about people seeking truth is that they're in it for the truth. They want you to hunt down their weak arguments and set them straight. They revel in the competition. They'll spar with you as an equal. Cultists, on the other hand, run like cowards. Cultists are useless, but at least it's entertaining to hunt them.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 10/24/2020 at 10:42 AM, 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!

But you have BILLIONS of years worth of solar and wind, and it is only 2-3 years from becoming CHEAPER than NG or coal, why on Earth would you want to slow it's progress? 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

NickW

Your numbers are identical to mine with the exception that you used 30% cf whereas i used the EIA number from observed 2019 output of 35%

You, or anyone, can go the various sites online and get a realtime display of wind output as was recently demonstrated with the drama in California during their recent heat wave.

The CAISO site shows the wide spread variation in wind output throughout the day.

As of this posting, the wind production in California is just under 4,900 Mw (8 thru 10 PM) which is up from the 2,188 Mw at 06:30 this morning.

Everyday occurrence, within wider parameters.

Seasonal variations are easily, quickly checked on the EIA site, if one seeks a more expansive view.

 

More than a little ironic - and amusing - that you state the wind farms are not designed to produce their designed maximum output every day.

You know that.

I know that.

And yet, NickW, Every. Single. Article. That describes new windfarms sez "XXX Megawatts can be produced which can power ZZZ homes in a year".

Complete balderdash as these chest thumping descriptions depict max design output, 24/7/365. 

Complete nonsensical posturing, one might say.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Coffeeguyzz

[Boat + 1,315]

On 10/4/2020 at 2:19 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.

In a semi related theme the price of nat gas is high compared recent history. This will help future wind and solar if it stays up. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

NickW

Your numbers are identical to mine with the exception that you used 30% cf whereas i used the EIA number from observed 2019 output of 35%

You, or anyone, can go the various sites online and get a realtime display of wind output as was recently demonstrated with the drama in California during their recent heat wave.

The CAISO site shows the wide spread variation in wind output throughout the day.

As of this posting, the wind production in California is just under 4,900 Mw (8 thru 10 PM) which is up from the 2,188 Mw at 06:30 this morning.

Everyday occurrence, within wider parameters.

Seasonal variations are easily, quickly checked on the EIA site, if one seeks a more expansive view.

 

More than a little ironic - and amusing - that you state the wind farms are not designed to produce their designed maximum output every day.

You know that.

I know that.

And yet, NickW, Every. Single. Article. That describes new windfarms sez "XXX Megawatts can be produced which can power ZZZ homes in a year".

Complete balderdash as these chest thumping descriptions depict max design output, 24/7/365. 

Complete nonsensical posturing, one might say.

I have no doubt there is plenty of bad reporting about when it comes to numbers. Thats not unique to energy. 

When it comes to wind farms (or solar) the correct approach is as follows. 

The 100MW windfarm with an anticipated capacity factor of 30% will generate the electricity each year for 75000 (UK average domestic demand is 3500kwh) typical households. However wind is intermittent so will need to be backed up by conventional sources of power such as gas or hydroelectric / pump storage etc etc. 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Boat, NickW

The price of natty has just passed the $3/mmbtu threshold (HH) again today, which is relatively high for the past 2/3 years.

Pretty common to have been bouncing around the $2/$2.50 range during that time.

The future pricing - as always - remains uncertain but the NYMEX strip is (last time I checked)  mostly under $3 going out several years. Historically, these are extremely (unsustainably ?) low prices.

While I will not veer off into the  natgas world, I continue to closely follow the operational aspects of the unconventional hydrocarbon producers and continue to see operational costs in the Appalachian Basin region as being viable in a ~$2/mmbtu world.

The effects will be profound on competing industries ...  solar/wind for one.

It poses absolutely existential threats to regimes relying upon higher hydrocarbon pricing as can be seen with the current financial stress in the Middle East.

 

Nick, that is an excellent observation and description of an illustrative wind farm's potential.

It is pretty understandable, I think, for everyone to put their best spin on situations ("selling the sizzle sells the steak"), but wading through the tons of info/misinfo/disinfo can be a daunting task.

It is through venues like these threads, I believe, that stuff can be put forth, interested/motivated observers can do their own due diligence, and conclusions and preferred options can be had ... irrespective of the differences people place on varying issues of importance.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

17 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

While I will not veer off into the  natgas world, I continue to closely follow the operational aspects of the unconventional hydrocarbon producers and continue to see operational costs in the Appalachian Basin region as being viable in a ~$2/mmbtu world.

Just sharing info. BC gas on good lands in 2$ to produce cad . Plus 25c to get it to US. Alberta gas is often 2.90 cad all in. Some producers dont have their own processing facilities so that's another 45c. But oil is usually 20% of production (NGL and condensate so oil does effect production that effects price). But from a US perspective Cad gas is always cheap and clean to import when the exchange is considered. This is another input into US futures prices. But long term I dont see above 3$ mabey we have 2 years ahead of higher prices 3.50$ average ? Then back below 3$ IMO. Obviously anything could happen.