GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

55 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, "emissions" in this type of discussion invariably refer to atmospheric emissions. What you are doing is trying to expand the term to include "waste products", which are not the same concept at all, because they are what remains after the process is completed. "Waste" is not transmitted into the atmosphere to be breathed by neighbors. If "waste" is placed into a river to be distributed to other property owners, that is called "dumping", and is actionable.

Nuclear plants have nuclear waste left over after the process is complete, it must be dealt with without dumping it on other properties. But it doesn't evaporate into the atmosphere to be breathed by the general population. That would be an emission.

The Energy Information Administration disagrees with you and guess what...they win!

"Emissions from burning coal

Several principal emissions result from coal combustion:

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
• Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
• Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the primary greenhouse gas produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
• Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals
• Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

In the past, fly ash was released into the air through the smokestack, but laws now require that most emissions of fly ash be captured by pollution control devices. In the United States, fly ash and bottom ash are generally stored near power plants or placed in landfills. Pollution leaching from coal ash storage and landfills into groundwater and several large impoundments of coal ash that ruptured are environmental concerns."

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php

Edited May 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the problem in a nutshell, demonstrated by the issues raised in California. Green electricity doesn't pay its way, it requires the general taxpayer to come forward if the American poor are to be  rescued from crippling electricity bills.

 

"PG&E customers pay about 80% more per kilowatt-hour than the national average, according to a study by the energy institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas Business School with the nonprofit think tank Next 10. The study analyzed the rates of the state’s three largest investor-owned utilities and found that Southern California Edison charged 45% more than the national average, while San Diego Gas & Electric charged double. Even low-income residents enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program paid more than the average American.

“California’s retail prices are out of line with utilities across the country,” said UC Berkeley assistant professor and study co-author Meredith Fowlie, citing Hawaii and some New England states among the outliers with even higher rates. “And they’re increasing.”

1. Wildfire liability and mitigation costs are being passed to the customers. PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January 2019, facing liabilities from multiple catastrophic wildfires that were caused by its power lines in Northern California. The fires collectively led to more than 100 deaths and burned over hundreds of thousands of acres; when it filed for bankruptcy, the company estimated that its liabilities could amount to $30 billion.https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-exits-bankruptcy-but-long-term-wildfire-risk-could-put-it-back-in-th/581017/

2. Volumetric and net metering rate policy that we are working on redoing for roof top solar. Roof top solar customers are being over compensated. 

3. Utility scale renewables are not causing high retail rates:

California’s high electricity prices have been attributed to its aggressive adoption of renewable generation under the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program. In 2019, all electricity retail sellers had an annual target to serve at least 29 percent of their electric load with RPS-eligible resources. Under this RPS, utilityscale solar and wind generation capacity had reached almost 12,000 MW and 6,000 MW, respectively, by 2018.22 To the extent that qualifying renewable resources are more expensive, the RPS mandate will increase the cost of electricity generation. The CPUC tracks RPS and nonRPS procurement expenditures in terms of $/kWh and annual RPS revenue requirements. RPS procurement costs have fallen at a rate of 13 percent per year between 2007 and 2019. In 2019, the average RPS energy contract price across all technology types was $28/MWh. As renewable energy technology costs have fallen, so has the above-market premium for renewable energy generation. The average difference in RPS versus nonRPS procurement costs reported by the large investorowned utilities had dropped to $0.0028/kWh in 2019

Dividing the utility-specific RPS revenue requirements by the corresponding RPS procurement cost (per kWh) yields an estimate of the quantity of electricity procured to comply with the RPS mandate. This quantity was then multiplied by the reported RPS cost premium to estimate the additional generation costs incurred to meet RPS obligations. Assuming that 40 percent of RPS compliance costs are recovered from residential customers, the impact of the RPS mandate on residential retail prices (in terms of $/kWh) can be estimated. On a per kWh basis, these residential rate impacts of RPS compliance are small. In 2019, SDG&E paid no price premium for RPS-eligible procurement. The authors estimate average residential rate impacts per kWh of $0.006 and $0.0001 for PG&E and SCE, respectively. These cost differences for renewables comprise a very small part of the generation component of the upper staircase in Figure 4a-c. The large “Generation Fixed Costs” boxes for all three utilities represent contracts and utility-owned generation at costs well above 2019 market prices for all types of generation.

https://www.next10.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/Next10-electricity-rates-v2.pdf

4. Renewables are paying their way just fine.

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Bad news Jay!

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Soaring-Solar-Costs-Could-Slow-The-Renewable-Boom.html

Looks like solar is under pressure!

C02 zero emission gas plants the way forward! Reliable, low start up cost, even lower running cost, green, sell off the by products, nitrogen, Argon etc making them even more financially attractive, smaller footprint compared to conventional gas plants and certainly that of renewables.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A question for you Rob - are toxic emissions and toxic waste the same thing or different things?

I would generally class them as the same thing. However if you take the case of nuclear, radioactive emissions such as from the atom bomb at Hiroshima clearly can be catastrophic, however radioactive waste is contained in "flasks" as part of decommissioning, so its hard really to classify that as emissions as it is never released back into the atmosphere/environment but is contained for eternity (or as near as makes no difference) underground. The flasks can withstand a train crash at 100mph so very very safe.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/nuclear/so-nuclear-flasks-and-containers-canada-tcm92-25096.pdf

Westinghouse amongst others also make these for nuclear waste storage.

If you are talking fossil fuel emissions/waste then I would class them as the same as both are hazardous to the environment.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Rob Plant

[specinho + 470]

On 5/26/2021 at 6:38 AM, turbguy said:

76% coal fired thermal efficiency?

76% ANYTHING FIRED heat engine efficiency?

Do you realize the fluid temperatures required to obtain that?

Impossible!

pardon me, i do not know how it is done. It is listed in one of the comparative charts in one of the discussions about renewable energy, if not mistaken. The discussion extended onto efficiency of energy supply - renewable vs conventional methods or something like that... Look it up and you may find it. With location mentioned also, if not mistaken.

a side note, in one of the discussion boards about energy efficiency of fuel car vs electric car, a theoretical calculation was made to cross check the value provided (lower than 30% or something). The end result shows a likely 86% efficiency, in theory, on the combustion engine of common fuel car.

therefore, shall pulverized coal enhance surface in contact with sufficient oxygen supply and etc, the possibility could be there. Ask those who have done it, no?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Bad news Jay!

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Soaring-Solar-Costs-Could-Slow-The-Renewable-Boom.html

Looks like solar is under pressure!

C02 zero emission gas plants the way forward! Reliable, low start up cost, even lower running cost, green, sell off the by products, nitrogen, Argon etc making them even more financially attractive, smaller footprint compared to conventional gas plants and certainly that of renewables.

 China will be rapidly ramping production and then it will be cheaper than ever in about a year. We do need to do something about keeping western production competitive. 

I wonder how much pressure will develop against gas because of methane leaks?

Edited May 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

22 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 China will be rapidly ramping production and then it will be cheaper than ever in about a year. We do need to do something about keeping western production competitive. 

I wonder how much pressure will develop against gas because of methane leaks?

Jay why would they be ramping up production when the article states this:-

"Last week in China, spot prices for monocrystalline grade polysilicon rose to RMB164 (US$25.40)/kg, PVTech reported.

For solar manufacturers, it doesn’t just mean higher prices for end products; it means potential project delays because the costs simply aren’t tenable. "

This has nothing to do with Western manufacturers "keeping up" with Chinese production costs. the costs are ramping up in China making them far too expensive against alternate power sources, and even delaying projects.

If projects are delayed then production wont be ramping up it will be reducing very very quickly!!

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Meanwhile in other news

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/uk-scientists-could-have-solved-one-of-nuclear-fusions-biggest-problems/

Looks like they're making headway with compact fusion power plants. Knock each problem down until you get there one STEP at a time. (pun intended if you read the article)

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

12 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Jay why would they be ramping up production when the article states this:-

"Last week in China, spot prices for monocrystalline grade polysilicon rose to RMB164 (US$25.40)/kg, PVTech reported.

For solar manufacturers, it doesn’t just mean higher prices for end products; it means potential project delays because the costs simply aren’t tenable. "

This has nothing to do with Western manufacturers "keeping up" with Chinese production costs. the costs are ramping up in China making them far too expensive against alternate power sources, and even delaying projects.

If projects are delayed then production wont be ramping up it will be reducing very very quickly!!

It is the Chinese polysilicon manufacturers that will be ramping up production.  The cost of poly is up because of tremendous worlwide demand for solar panels.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

14 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is the Chinese polysilicon manufacturers that will be ramping up production.  The cost of poly is up because of tremendous worlwide demand for solar panels.

So its a basic supply and demand issue that's ramping up prices to the solar panel manufacturers, who in turn must have more than full order books.

They in turn will then pass those extra costs which are significant down the line and eventually that goes to the consumer. However surely that will make solar uncompetitive against other energy sources, which was my point, as these costs have quadrupled in no time.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

This thread is titled "Green new deal = Blizzard of lies"

In todays news

https://news.sky.com/story/climate-forecast-40-chance-world-will-hit-1-5c-threshold-in-next-five-years-12317958

So another "the world is going to end, were all doomed" forecast (which will be totally wrong).

As an average guy I'm wondering why this is so when the earth was 16 degrees hotter 65 million years ago???

https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

14 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

So its a basic supply and demand issue that's ramping up prices to the solar panel manufacturers, who in turn must have more than full order books.

They in turn will then pass those extra costs which are significant down the line and eventually that goes to the consumer. However surely that will make solar uncompetitive against other energy sources, which was my point, as these costs have quadrupled in no time.

You are assuming that the cost increase is enough to make solar uncompetitive. 

But those higher costs will only last until the poly manufactures scale up. This is how the exponential decreasing cost curve works. It is not uncommon for demand increases to occur which will cause prices to rise in the short term until the bottleneck responds to the price signal and scales up to the next level. Expect poli prices to be lower than ever in a year or two.

In this case Covid caused the world to go gung ho on renewables overnight. Much of this demand is green demand who will pay a premium of some amount for green energy.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are assuming that the cost increase is enough to make solar uncompetitive. 

But those higher costs will only last until the poly manufactures scale up. This is how the exponential decreasing cost curve works. There are often demand increases which will cause prices to rise in the short term until the bottleneck responds to the price signal and scales up to the next level. Expect poli prices to be lower than ever in a year or two.

We will see Jay

Even if you're right It takes time and money to scale up a manufacturing business, it doesn't just happen overnight.

In the meantime solar is less and less competitive against alternative energy sources.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

27 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

We will see Jay

Even if you're right It takes time and money to scale up a manufacturing business, it doesn't just happen overnight.

In the meantime solar is less and less competitive against alternative energy sources.

Well they saw this coming and started building last year. The big wave of new capacity is expected to come online in Q4 of this year.

The price of both coal and natural gas are up by 50% since last year. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Jay last year was a pandemic so far less demand, gas is getting back to normal levels following historic lows

Edited May 27, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Q1 data just released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that solar and wind increased by 24.3% and 10.5%, respectively, for electrical output. Combined, solar and wind grew by 13.6% and accounted for more than one-eighth (12.8%) of U.S. electrical generation.

 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

32 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Q1 data just released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that solar and wind increased by 24.3% and 10.5%, respectively, for electrical output. Combined, solar and wind grew by 13.6% and accounted for more than one-eighth (12.8%) of U.S. electrical generation.

 

 

yep and watch it grow a lot more over the next 4 years as political will and money is what its all about.

[ChrisK Shaw + 11]

Jay, thanks for the source.  Just to put things in perspective, wind moved from being 9.6% of the total power to 12.7% (Mar20 vs Mar21) while PV+thermal  moved from 2.1% to 3.0%.  Easier to move by large percentage when starting from a low base.  Clearly wind is beginning to take market share... I'd love to see what the nameplate capacity for wind and PV is that resulted in these numbers (presumably a factor of 3 or so larger than their actual contribution).  Each Month has its own weather conditions and their relative contributions will change tremendously.... which is the prime reason why they should not be part of the grid. 

Projects I am associated with where a new lower cost  technology is proposed to replace an existing one, do not result in the new "lower cost" version being selected once its discovered that we need to have the original technology "on stand-by" in case of non-availability of the new.

A remote outpost requiring domestic levels of power use, where the nearest power line is far, and the land is cheap, would be a splendid oppty for a combo wind/PV/battery solution.  Niche at best outside of the Preppers market.

[turbguy + 1,543]

31 minutes ago, ChrisK Shaw said:

A remote outpost requiring domestic levels of power use, where the nearest power line is far, and the land is cheap, would be a splendid oppty for a combo wind/PV/battery solution.  Niche at best outside of the Preppers market.

With a Diesel Generator backup as well.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, ChrisK Shaw said:

Jay, thanks for the source.  Just to put things in perspective, wind moved from being 9.6% of the total power to 12.7% (Mar20 vs Mar21) while PV+thermal  moved from 2.1% to 3.0%.  Easier to move by large percentage when starting from a low base.  Clearly wind is beginning to take market share... I'd love to see what the nameplate capacity for wind and PV is that resulted in these numbers (presumably a factor of 3 or so larger than their actual contribution).  Each Month has its own weather conditions and their relative contributions will change tremendously.... which is the prime reason why they should not be part of the grid. 

Projects I am associated with where a new lower cost  technology is proposed to replace an existing one, do not result in the new "lower cost" version being selected once its discovered that we need to have the original technology "on stand-by" in case of non-availability of the new.

A remote outpost requiring domestic levels of power use, where the nearest power line is far, and the land is cheap, would be a splendid oppty for a combo wind/PV/battery solution.  Niche at best outside of the Preppers market.

From spinning reserve to peakers, fossil fuel plants all have technology "on stand-by" in case of non-availability of the primary. Batteries work well for when a fossil plant takes a shit:   Tesla Powerpack battery steps in after coal plant explodes in Australia

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

From spinning reserve to peakers, fossil fuel plants all have technology "on stand-by" in case of non-availability of the primary. Batteries work well for when a fossil plant takes a shit:   Tesla Powerpack battery steps in after coal plant explodes in Australia

Yeah but for how long Jay?

Honestly how long do the Tesla battery back ups last for before they run out of juice??

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

 

 

On 5/27/2021 at 7:55 AM, Rob Plant said:

Yeah but for how long Jay?

Honestly how long do the Tesla battery back ups last for before they run out of juice??

Depends on how many of them you have. Then you have the fact that the sun comes up every day and wind blows almost every day. Throw in a little green hydrogen, pumped hydro and/or CAES and you are set year round.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[notsonice + 1,255]

and yet solar prices per watt fall again to the lowest level ever, Panel prices may be going up but efficiency is also going up.

 

May 17, 2021Tim Sylvia

 

More solar modules are being shipped at lower prices, EIA data shows

The latest from the Energy Information Administration shows that more than 2.7 GW of modules were shipped at an average price of $0.34 per watt during March.

More solar modules are being shipped at lower prices than ever before, according to the latest edition of the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Monthly Solar Photovoltaic Module Shipments Report.

In January, 1.725 GW of modules were shipped at an average price of $0.36 per watt, tied for the lowest per-W price since EIA began tracking module shipments in 2017. In February, prices fell to new record lows, as 1.728 GW of modules were shipped at an average price of $0.34 per watt. In March, the per-watt price was extended, while a new record was set for total modules shipped, as 2.712 GW of modules were shipped at an average price of $0.34 per watt.

The jump in capacity recorded during March was noteworthy as it happened in the first quarter. Historically, module shipment spikes have occurred later in the year, as developers look to lock in that year’s investment tax credits (ITC) through a safe harbor provision that allows them to pay 5% or more of the cost of a project. Considering that modules represent more than 5% of total project costs, securing modules at the end of the year has been a common way to lock in the prior year’s ITC.

In March, California led the way, as it typically does, with 574 MW of modules shipped to projects in the state. Texas was a close second, with 544 MW of capacity shipped to in-state projects. Five other states recorded more than 100 MW of module shipments in March, a milestone that had not before been accomplished.

The five states were Georgia, shipping 190 MW; Illinois shipping 116 MW; Nevada shipping 131 MW; North Carolina shipping 118 MW; and Virginia shipping 110 MW. Unlike previous versions of the EIA report, the top states for shipments did not feature any surprises, as most of the leading states are known solar hotbeds. Illinois was perhaps the only outlier, although it has solidified its solar commitment in recent years.

Price per watt on the decline

February and March also featured the lowest cost per watt in the history of the report. Both months notched an average cost per peak watt of $0.34, edging out the previous record of $0.36, set in January. That price had been reached four other times since early 2020. The mark also was lower than March 2020’s average price of $0.37 per watt, though drops in average price have become less significant as the solar market has matured. It used to be common for prices to fluctuate a couple of cents per month. That trend leveled out in February 2020, and no single-month change has been greater than 2 cents since.

[notsonice + 1,255]

real prices

https://www.eia.gov/renewable/monthly/solar_photo/pdf/pv_table3.pdf

Edited May 27, 2021 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Energy Information Administration disagrees with you and guess what...they win!

"Emissions from burning coal

Several principal emissions result from coal combustion:

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses
• Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease
• Carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the primary greenhouse gas produced from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas)
• Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals
• Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

In the past, fly ash was released into the air through the smokestack, but laws now require that most emissions of fly ash be captured by pollution control devices. In the United States, fly ash and bottom ash are generally stored near power plants or placed in landfills. Pollution leaching from coal ash storage and landfills into groundwater and several large impoundments of coal ash that ruptured are environmental concerns."

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php

Smog? Acid rain? These are not in the atmosphere? Right, Jay, more strange logic here from your sources.

These are all atmospheric, it seems. That supports my point, in case you do not realize it.

Note that  your source is out of date, these are all associated with old technology.