GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[notsonice + 1,069]

US energy storage industry smashes quarterly deployment record with 3.5GWh in Q3 2021

By Andy Colthorpe

December 14, 2021

 

A 25MW / 100MWh BESS project brought online in the service area of Arizona utility Salt River Project (SRP) in the quarter. Image: SRP.

In the third quarter of 2021, almost as much energy storage was deployed in the US as was recorded for the whole of 2020, when the industry surpassed a gigawatt of installations for the first time ever. 

According to the latest quarterly US Energy Storage Monitor report from Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, between July and September this year 1,140MW / 3,515MWh of energy storage were installed in the country. 

The research and analysis firm had said at the end of last year that 1,464MW / 3,487MWh of new energy storage had gone online in the preceding 12 months. This in turn was more than had been deployed in the US in six years prior, from 2013 to 2019. 

In other words, Q3 2021 saw the greatest quarterly deployment figures on record in megawatts, with 612MW more deployed than in Q4 2020, the previous record holder. 

As before, activity was largely driven by front-of-the-meter, utility-scale energy storage with close to a gigawatt of installations (998.8MW). It’s unlikely to be surprising to regular readers of Energy-Storage.news that most of that was in California. 

However, there was also growth in the residential and non-residential (commercial & industrial, community etc) segments. A quarterly total of 97.9MW / 225MWh of residential installations were logged and 43.6MW / 92.1MWh in non-residential — that segment’s highest figure for 2021.    

Durations are increasing in the energy storage market, with the average front-of-the-meter project having 3.2 hours of storage duration. Again, this average was largely bumped upwards by California, where four-hour duration projects are increasingly typical, due to contracts for Resource Adequacy (RA), the market mechanism by which grid operator CAISO ensures energy suppliers are able to meet their capacity obligations. 

The residential average duration was 2.3 hours, while non-residential projects’ average duration was 2.1 hours. 

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Famous last words...we have already seen the reversal in Europe, the shape of things to come.

And, no, Jay, I do not own coal stocks....you apparently own Tesla stocks?  Just like I suggested to you, and you would not answer?

I'll believe a "coal reversal" is occurring in a region when I see new coal-fired facilities being built/commissioned in that region.

I don't see any new in the USA.  Been that way for years.

Coal plants get VERY expensive after 40-50 years of service.

Even more so if they were designed for base load, and then enter cyclic service.

Reality found right here:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50658

Edited December 16, 2021 by turbguy

[Eric Gagen + 713]

18 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Laws can easily be changed or overridden by government fiat.

They can, but laws don’t change economics.  In the US at least, it’s cheaper to buy burn and use natural gas for electricity than coal, and that’s before getting into wind which has some serious potential advantages if/when paired with natural gas as a partner.  A 5 year timeframe to figure out the best way to shut down the rest of the coal plants seems a little bold (for government action) but definately workable.  And not ‘well I suppose in theory it might happen’ but in a straightforward economically beneficial way.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Russia is blaming Europe for creating its own energy crisis through misguided anti-fossil fuel policies.

The results of Green Mania and hysterical climate panic are coming home to roost.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Russia-Puts-The-Blame-On-Europe-As-Energy-Crisis-Worsens.html

"The EU has struggled with insufficient gas supply for months now, and the situation is not about to change as Russia continues to supply precisely what it had committed to deliver under long-term contracts. This has earned it accusations of using gas as a political weapon and increased the EU’s determination to reduce its reliance on Russian gas.

Russia, for its part, denies any accusations about using gas for geopolitics and reaffirms it supplies the volumes of gas to its customers in Europe as per long-term contracts. 

And it says Europe’s decisions to move away from long-term deals are one of the reasons for the current gas crisis. "

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

7 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

They can, but laws don’t change economics.  In the US at least, it’s cheaper to buy burn and use natural gas for electricity than coal, and that’s before getting into wind which has some serious potential advantages if/when paired with natural gas as a partner.  A 5 year timeframe to figure out the best way to shut down the rest of the coal plants seems a little bold (for government action) but definately workable.  And not ‘well I suppose in theory it might happen’ but in a straightforward economically beneficial way.

In an energy crisis, such as in Europe, policies can reverse in a hurry.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

In an energy crisis, such as in Europe, policies can reverse in a hurry.

The US isn’t Europe.  If it has an energy crisis it will have different causes and different solutions. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Thats a no then on ordering an EV.

Dont blame you they are expensive for what you get.

I have a hybrid BMW but only to save a fortune in car tax, having said that it does give me the best of both worlds and I actually really like the car.

There is NO doubt that EV's are the future which is why all of the major car manufacturers are going in that direction due to governments imposing laws to ban them, so common sense really. It doesnt make the whole EV revolution the correct course of action though.

Coal is a horrible FF, inefficient and incredibly polluting so I'm no fan of that and glad it will be banned by 2024 in the UK. My concern is that the infrastructure in place when it is banned will not be able to cope or be reliable enough to cope with the demand for electricity.

This energy transition period is one of huge risk to countries and economies globally.

Ecocharger is correct in stating FF usage is only going to increase over the next decade or 2 as the demand for power/electricity will sky rocket. Hopefully NG will fill the void whilst we get a more stable and varied supply globally.

Interesting times for sure!

So you are fine with predictions you agree with. But predictions to the alternative are just people "soothsaying" gotcha. And yes new EV sales will be +90% of the global market by 2040. That is an easy one.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, turbguy said:

I'll believe a "coal reversal" is occurring in a region when I see new coal-fired facilities being built/commissioned in that region.

I don't see any new in the USA.  Been that way for years.

Coal plants get VERY expensive after 40-50 years of service.

Even more so if they were designed for base load, and then enter cyclic service.

Reality found right here:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50658

Of the operating U.S. coal-fired power plants, 28% plan to retire by 2035 That is a long time for them to still be in competition. We have a big new one in Springfield, Illinois, the Capital. RCW

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

3 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

The US isn’t Europe.  If it has an energy crisis it will have different causes and different solutions. 

I think that the causes of the upcoming U.S. energy crisis will be the same as the current European energy crisis...misguided government policies sparked by climate panic. 

Policy-making never gets it right when minds are gripped with panic.

Europe has shown us that older coal plants can be fired up in a hurry when energy shortages develop, look for that to be prominent feature of the U.S. and Europe energy landscape going forward.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

They can, but laws don’t change economics.  In the US at least, it’s cheaper to buy burn and use natural gas for electricity than coal, and that’s before getting into wind which has some serious potential advantages if/when paired with natural gas as a partner.  A 5 year timeframe to figure out the best way to shut down the rest of the coal plants seems a little bold (for government action) but definately workable.  And not ‘well I suppose in theory it might happen’ but in a straightforward economically beneficial way.

The Governor of Illinois, a billionaire, just negotiated a new coal plant addition life to 2035. There are a lot of good functioning units left nationwide. So, I think, they will be around for a long time. Just like the old nuclear plants that are now subsidized by the rate payers. Money talks. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

EVs absolutely require government subsidization to function in the marketplace, offering less attractive products than equivalent ICE internal combustion models. Now Europe is backtracking on the EV subsidy programs, hoping that Green rhetoric will suffice to sell EV products, but that will probably backfire, especially given the low quality of EV vehicles compared to their ICE counterparts.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-UK-Is-Slashing-EV-Grants-Once-Again.html

"For the second time this year, the UK is slashing the grants available to buyers of electric vehicles (EVs) as it looks to curb spending and targets less expensive models.

“Soaring demand for EVs leads to refocusing of grants on the most affordable zero-emission cars, making best use of taxpayer money,” the UK government said on Wednesday, announcing the changes to its EV incentive policies, the second major change in less than one year.

The grant for EVs is now slashed by 40 percent and limited to buyers of electric cars priced below $42,420 (£32,000). The grant is up to $1,988 (£1,500) for electric cars priced under £32,000, with currently around 20 models on the market, the UK government said today.

The previous grant for electric vehicles was up to $3,313 (£2,500) for cars priced under $46,390 (£35,000).  

The up to £2,500 grant was introduced in March 2021, when the UK government cut the grant from $3,976 (£3,000), and incurred the criticism of Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), which said that it was “the wrong move at the wrong time.”

In its announcement today, the UK government said that the grant scheme “has been updated to target less expensive models, allowing the scheme’s funding to go further and to help more people make the switch to an electric vehicle (EV).”

“The market is charging ahead in the switch to electric vehicles. This, together with the increasing choice of new vehicles and growing demand from customers, means that we are refocusing our vehicle grants on the more affordable vehicles and reducing grant rates to allow more people to benefit, and enable taxpayers’ money to go further,” Transport Minister Trudy Harrison said.

SMMT criticized the move, with Mike Hawes, SMMT Chief Executive, saying, “Slashing the grants for electric vehicles once again is a blow to customers looking to make the switch and couldn’t come at a worse time, with inflation at a ten-year high and pandemic-related economic uncertainty looming large.”"

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

EVs absolutely require government subsidization to function in the marketplace, offering less attractive products than equivalent ICE internal combustion models. Now Europe is backtracking on the EV subsidy programs, hoping that Green rhetoric will suffice to sell EV products, but that will probably backfire, especially given the low quality of EV vehicles compared to their ICE counterparts.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-UK-Is-Slashing-EV-Grants-Once-Again.html

The UK is not Europe. EV sales continued to increase after the last cut. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We don't care about such things but Trump sure does. 

 

You brought it up, right? We saw him at an NRA meeting in Indianapolis and had a great time. Many other good speakers were there too. I am sure you would enjoy a speech from President Biden too. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

You brought it up, right? We saw him at an NRA meeting in Indianapolis and had a great time. Many other good speakers were there too. I am sure you would enjoy a speech from President Biden too. 

I brought it up because it is what Trump is all about. We don't worship our politicians. I wouldn't walk one foot to hear a speech from Biden.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

23 hours ago, turbguy said:

The truth is indeed that coal is currently needed.

It is also true that it has been used less and less.

It is also true that it will continue to be used less and less.

It's gonna take a decade or so.

Just watch...

I have been against coal all along, but now that Demoncrats are trying to shut down oil and natural gas we are in need of affordable energy, so I am OK with high tech coal plants. I would even go for nuclear if it were actually competitive. The other problem with nuclear is it takes way too long to build. 

Wind and solar are OK but want too many subsidies and need to be built out gradually. They need to pay their own way.

Another problem for solar is that the government doesn't want individuals to benefit. At least in California: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/solar-power-advocates-slam-new-california-proposal-to-reduce-subsidies.html

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The UK is not Europe. EV sales continued to increase after the last cut. 

Now is the desperation point, EVs on the point of failure.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I brought it up because it is what Trump is all about. We don't worship our politicians. I wouldn't walk one foot to hear a speech from Biden.

I would walk ten feet to hear him....on the television.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I brought it up because it is what Trump is all about. We don't worship our politicians. I wouldn't walk one foot to hear a speech from Biden.

I don't worship them either. I do appreciate good policy and results though. Our money supports whatever they support. Right now, we are headed for economic disaster. I lived through the stagflation of Jimmy Carter and his Iran fiasco. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Here is what is needed, a research institute dedicated to some broad-based investigation of energy-based issues. We certainly lack that right now, all we get is simple-minded propaganda designed to panic the masses and rally support for political directives. Shameless politics.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/The-Oil-Tycoon-Creating-An-Energy-Institute-For-The-Next-Generation.html

"The Institute will have a state-of-the-art lab created just for oil and gas—complete with wells drilled below the building, according to a press release from t OSU.

It would be one of a kind.

The Institute is significant in another way as well. As the ESG movement picks up steam and some oil and gas companies dip their toes into renewable waters, an institute devoted to oil and gas could initially be seen by some as out of touch or tone-deaf. But the future of oil and gas decades from now is still seen by many as near-certain.
One of the goals of the Institute would be to solve “one of society’s most pressing concerns,” adding that it would “change the trajectory of energy security in the United States.”

“The Hamm Institute will ensure America leads the world when it comes to advancing innovation and technology while responsibly producing the energy we need for decades to come,” the press release reads.

“It is part of the Continental mission—to find, nurture and inspire the next generation of energy leaders. We envision the Hamm Institute for American Energy to be the epicenter of learning, research and energy innovation for decades to come,” Continental Resources’ CEO Bill Berry said."

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Now is the desperation point, EVs on the point of failure.

You forgot to take your meds again. EV sales are skyrocketing. I show you the growing sales numbers every month, remember?

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You forgot to take your meds again. EV sales are skyrocketing. I show you the growing sales numbers every month, remember?

Yah, like I saw two ants racing each other under an upturned glass...they were really skyrocketing along the dragstrip.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Yah, like I saw two ants racing each other under an upturned glass...they were really skyrocketing along the dragstrip.

Did you say dragstrip?

Watch a Tesla Plaid destroy a McClaren at the dragstrip https://youtu.be/dtYXssB2SS0?t=524

 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Did you say dragstrip?

Watch a Tesla Plaid destroy a McClaren at the dragstrip https://youtu.be/dtYXssB2SS0?t=524

 

We were talking sales numbers, Jay, remember?

Who cares about production cars, anyway? These are not racing vehicles.

ICE owns the racing numbers over the EVs. You should choose your ground more carefully, Jay.

Edited December 16, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We were talking sales numbers, Jay, remember?

What that EV did to that ICE car is a perfect analogy for the sales numbers.

https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Zero-Emission-Vehicles-Factbook_FINAL.pdf

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

The Success Of The Mustang Mach-E Is Forcing Ford To Adjust Its Production Plans

Nothing succeeds like success. A few years ago, Ford took a flyer on the Mustang Mach-E. I know an engineer who works for the Blue Oval team who told me in 2019 that car was more or less an afterthought, a “Let’s run it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes” idea. Initially, Ford thought it might be able to sell 30,000 of them a year. But a funny thing happened on the way to the marketplace. Not only did plenty of people salute, they brought lots of others along with them to salute the EV flag as well. Pretty soon, Ford had a hit on its hands, one it wasn’t quite prepared for.

Now it seems the Mustang Mach-E that was going to be built in compliance car numbers has more customers waiting for it than the company ever thought possible. First it raised its production goal to around 70,000 a year, and now it says it is tripling that goal to 200,000 cars a year in 2023. That, in turn, is forcing the company to rethink its plans for other electric cars it has in the pipeline.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/15/the-success-of-the-mustang-mach-e-is-forcing-ford-to-adjust-its-production-plans/