Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Kirkman

Re Grammar Nazis (couldn't resist) ...

Motivated by the difference between 'knowing your shit' and 'knowing you're shit'.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Ronwgn

 

USA has about 10 entities known as RTOs (Regional Transmission Organization)  or ISOs (Independent System Operator) which oversee and manage interstate electricity systems. (Texas, New York, and California run their own, intrastate operations).

When rates/prices are quoted as Dennis did referring to EIA-sourced data, it should be noted that the regional entity (consisting of some variably priced hubs ... commonly referred to as LMPs [Locational Marginal Pricing]) oversees the - generally - homogeneous pricing for the entire region.

Major factors of variation within the regions stem from local utility's operations, mandated contracting from governments, and - importantly - transmission costs (See the locations of Dennis' 4 states ... right nearby the whirleys. Eastern states are greatly hampered by the reliance upon frequently rejected long distance transmission lines).

 

Recent, increasingly intense friction is arising as "out of market" factors continue to manifest such as nuclear power plant subsidies, wind/solar generators receiving preferred status in the queue for providing grid electricity, etc).

Fascinating topic to watch unfold.

The New England ISO site offers a great entry  point for learning,  IMHO, as the information is easily obtained and understandable.

The PJM site (massive 95 million customer base), NYISO, and CAISO also present their data in somewhat similar form.

 

The EIA site is a goldmine for all sorts of educational data, but the sheer size makes for a somewhat intimidating experience.

Repetitive forays prompt familiarity.

 

Back in 2017 (July 22), an icon in the Peak Oil Community - Gail Tverberg - wrote a lengthy analysis on just why this wind/solar stuff cannot, WILL NOT work.

The article, titled " Researchers have been underestimating the cost ..." prompted almost 3 1/2 thousand comments as an enraged, somewhat naive audience, refused - collectively  - to accept the obvious conclusions from Ms. Tverberg's work.

 

Shame, that, as this stuff is not so gobbledygook complex.

Aww kontrair ... it is blindingly clear for those with the eyes to see.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

On 3/3/2020 at 1:44 PM, 0R0 said:

I have not looked at their database. Will go through it if it is publicly accessible with "in the weeds" data. 

I am saying that the general climate change community relies on the heavily contaminated databases. Fraudulent data coming from practically ALL country's doctoring of their temperature records keeps popping up in the scientific news. The entire field has thus been put in question as a science altogether. When Governments provide the funding and are motivated to impose goals on the researchers, their work becomes blanketed by doubt, if not outright dismissal by technical people outside the field. 

Berkeley use NCDC/NCAR data just like everyone else and why all of their models are identical and identically wrong. Why what I was talking about matters as data I was describing go directly into NCDC/NCAR . 

Guys like D-Coyne & Berkley earth are not talking about RAW data. 

Why the Satellite record is important which was slightly independent from NCDC/NCAR(not really as calibration is based on land temps...)and why the change to the top of the error band in 2017 was important. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

If there's one thing I've learned from all the BS posts on this thread, it's that natural gas is definitely crushing wind and solar. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[D Coyne + 305]

16 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Dennis

Wow. Now you have - once again - prompted to go WAY out into the weeds on this stuff.

Very educational, fascinating, important topic, this arena of electricity generation.

But - to emphatically re-state your (and Mr. Patterson's) observation ... "People tend to believe what they wish to be true". This is an ancient concept expressed by many prominent philosophers spanning thousands of years that is accurate, extremely important and - tragically  - universally ignored.

 

To the point raised earlier concerning taxes and monthly electric bills (this is crucial to your 4 state low electric bill/high wind component example).

Simplistically, monthly electric bills (similar to gas) can be broken into 4 distinct components 

1)  The commodity - electricity -  is a 'pass through' item with no, or minimally nominal mark up (this is an important concept to understand).

2) Transmission costs, aka long distance wires (pipelines for gas).

3)  The local utility's overhead, cost of operations, and acceptable projected profit.

Note ... Utilities are hybrid private/publicly supervised entities that are owned by private parties via shares of stock, but granted monopoly status in specific regions and allowed use of public space (underground piping/wiring, hardware are all on public property). The 'touchy' aspects in this set up focus on "profit" (see PG&E), and the MANDATORY dictats from goverments - mostly, but not completely, emanating from states.

Hence, your referenced PPAs (Power Purchase Agreements) are MANDATED by local governments compelling local utilities to PURCHASE electricity from favored - aka "green" - generators. Again, observe closely, learn of this unfolding PG&E fiasco to get a glimpse of the future.

Better yet, learn of the recent history of South Australia and recognize why people STILL believe gigantic, preposterous batteries make economic sense.

4) Taxes and government defined fees.

 

Your 4 states derive their power - and pricing - primarily through their regional ISO (Independent Systems Operator), which happens to be the SPP (Southwest Power Pool). 2018 fuel sources ~65,000 Megawatt, 14 state region were coal/42%, natgas/23%, wind/23%.

The next 2 years, Dennis, should see a continued ramp in wind production due to the PTC (Production Tax Credits) which give the generators about 23 bucks credit for every freakin' Megawatthour they produce ... whether the grid needs it at 4:00 AM in March or not (see Scotland for an extreme example).

 

Gonna end here, but post - shortly - some sourcing info for Mr. Ronwagn, you, or anyone should they wish to gain a more expansive,  coldly data-driven perspective on just what the heck is going on. 

Coffeeguyzz,

The tax credits are going to expire and that is priced into the EIA's AEO forecasts, Ron asked about prices, and I gave the prices in 2019 for the 4 states with the highest net generation from wind.  The PTC for wind expires at the end of 2020.

Perhaps in 2021 electricity prices will rise in those 4 states, note that all 4 of these states are rural where distribution and transmission costs tend to be higher than in more densely populated states.

Yes I assumed most people know that there are separate transmission and distribution costs for supply costs for electricity, I try not to insult people's intelligence with the obvious stuff.

As to mandated purchase of renewable power, one might think that would lead to higher prices for PPA's rather than lower prices.  One of the arguments against these mandates is that prices will be higher, or is the argument that prices will be too low?

That sounds like the fossil fuel power plants are looking for protection because they cannot compete.

[D Coyne + 305]

15 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Mr. Ronwgn

 

USA has about 10 entities known as RTOs (Regional Transmission Organization)  or ISOs (Independent System Operator) which oversee and manage interstate electricity systems. (Texas, New York, and California run their own, intrastate operations).

When rates/prices are quoted as Dennis did referring to EIA-sourced data, it should be noted that the regional entity (consisting of some variably priced hubs ... commonly referred to as LMPs [Locational Marginal Pricing]) oversees the - generally - homogeneous pricing for the entire region.

Major factors of variation within the regions stem from local utility's operations, mandated contracting from governments, and - importantly - transmission costs (See the locations of Dennis' 4 states ... right nearby the whirleys. Eastern states are greatly hampered by the reliance upon frequently rejected long distance transmission lines).

 

Recent, increasingly intense friction is arising as "out of market" factors continue to manifest such as nuclear power plant subsidies, wind/solar generators receiving preferred status in the queue for providing grid electricity, etc).

Fascinating topic to watch unfold.

The New England ISO site offers a great entry  point for learning,  IMHO, as the information is easily obtained and understandable.

The PJM site (massive 95 million customer base), NYISO, and CAISO also present their data in somewhat similar form.

 

The EIA site is a goldmine for all sorts of educational data, but the sheer size makes for a somewhat intimidating experience.

Repetitive forays prompt familiarity.

 

Back in 2017 (July 22), an icon in the Peak Oil Community - Gail Tverberg - wrote a lengthy analysis on just why this wind/solar stuff cannot, WILL NOT work.

The article, titled " Researchers have been underestimating the cost ..." prompted almost 3 1/2 thousand comments as an enraged, somewhat naive audience, refused - collectively  - to accept the obvious conclusions from Ms. Tverberg's work.

 

Shame, that, as this stuff is not so gobbledygook complex.

Aww kontrair ... it is blindingly clear for those with the eyes to see.

Gail Tverberg is an actuary and her understanding of science seems relatively limited.

There are many analyses in peer reviewed journals that contradict her analysis.  A gradual transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy seems quite possible and as cheaper renewables gradually drive fossil fuel from the market as the cost of renewable power (wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal) decreases and the cost of fossil fuel powered electricity generation increases as peak production of oil (2025), coal (2030), and natural gas (2035) approaches.

In fact, it would be better to begin the transition earlier rather than later as it is likely to be a challenge, waiting for the last minute is likely to lead to a more difficult transition.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 3/2/2020 at 4:35 AM, 0R0 said:

If you want to look at the science then look at it, the actual data, the actual science not the political claims and outlandish projections of scare mongers. If you are a pop climatologist with a PhD writing a book, you won't get much attention publishing "Nothing much going on in climate trends"

Science proves Orange Man Bad.

Fewer boys were born in Ontario after Trump was elected president: study

The number of boys born in politically liberal areas declined

 

 

 

Heh heh

[0R0 + 6,251]

18 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Gail Tverberg is an actuary and her understanding of science seems relatively limited.

There are many analyses in peer reviewed journals that contradict her analysis.  A gradual transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy seems quite possible and as cheaper renewables gradually drive fossil fuel from the market as the cost of renewable power (wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal) decreases and the cost of fossil fuel powered electricity generation increases as peak production of oil (2025), coal (2030), and natural gas (2035) approaches.

In fact, it would be better to begin the transition earlier rather than later as it is likely to be a challenge, waiting for the last minute is likely to lead to a more difficult transition.

Peer review puts scientific work to critical comment and tests its methods. It is also a means to enforce dogma. It is so in Medicine, in economics, in social sciences, and anything that either involves huge amounts of money or has political significance. Peer review is as much a tool of suppression and propaganda as well as a means to validate research and theory.

There is unlikely to be that sort of peak, as the demand dynamics are shifting hard away from current growth trends of which China has been 65-85% over two decades, to a peak in Chinese demand joining the US plateau and EU decline since the early 2000s. Without the covid19 outbreak, China may have had a plateau 2020-2025. Now that it has happened, and is going to force global supply chains out of China, then there will be a short additional demand to build infrastructure for the new alternative production while China demand slowly decelerates and turns negative and then plummets past 2025. 

Oil demand will be reduced by up to 25% by 2030 because of displacement by NG LNG and NGL in shipping, mining and construction and petrochemical inputs. Peak oil demand - if it wasn't last year, will be 2022-3 at the latest.

Perhaps peak coal has meaning in China or Germany, who both plan to use coal to plug in their renewables downtime. In many other places, first in the US, where coal consumption is already down 50% and will likely go down to 25% of its peak within a few years, NG by pipeline and LNG will displace the rest of coal use. The Eastern Mediterranean is moving off of coal as the gas fields are expanding and pipelines and LNG terminals are popping up. 

Higher oil prices will result in more NG production as a byproduct because the more recent fields developed - Guyana and Yamal as well as Shale, are so gassy. Oil production can "safely" fall well ahead of any geological forcing. . 

[D Coyne + 305]

On 3/7/2020 at 3:33 AM, 0R0 said:

Peer review puts scientific work to critical comment and tests its methods. It is also a means to enforce dogma. It is so in Medicine, in economics, in social sciences, and anything that either involves huge amounts of money or has political significance. Peer review is as much a tool of suppression and propaganda as well as a means to validate research and theory.

There is unlikely to be that sort of peak, as the demand dynamics are shifting hard away from current growth trends of which China has been 65-85% over two decades, to a peak in Chinese demand joining the US plateau and EU decline since the early 2000s. Without the covid19 outbreak, China may have had a plateau 2020-2025. Now that it has happened, and is going to force global supply chains out of China, then there will be a short additional demand to build infrastructure for the new alternative production while China demand slowly decelerates and turns negative and then plummets past 2025. 

Oil demand will be reduced by up to 25% by 2030 because of displacement by NG LNG and NGL in shipping, mining and construction and petrochemical inputs. Peak oil demand - if it wasn't last year, will be 2022-3 at the latest.

Perhaps peak coal has meaning in China or Germany, who both plan to use coal to plug in their renewables downtime. In many other places, first in the US, where coal consumption is already down 50% and will likely go down to 25% of its peak within a few years, NG by pipeline and LNG will displace the rest of coal use. The Eastern Mediterranean is moving off of coal as the gas fields are expanding and pipelines and LNG terminals are popping up. 

Higher oil prices will result in more NG production as a byproduct because the more recent fields developed - Guyana and Yamal as well as Shale, are so gassy. Oil production can "safely" fall well ahead of any geological forcing. . 

0R0,

Eventually oil production, coal production, and natural gas production will fall.  My guess is that initially it will be due to lack of supply rather than lack of demand for oil and natural gas, for coal it may be due to lack of demand.  It will be clear whather demand or supply is the limiting factor by looking at historical real energy prices.  If they are low at the peak in production then it the peak is due to a lack of demand, and if energy price is high it is due to constrained supply.

Impossible to accurately predict in advance which it will be in my opinion.

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

On 2/22/2020 at 5:33 AM, George8944 said:

The answer is simple.  They are optimizing on a zero carbon footprint and not the lowest cost of production.  Stop calling natual gas a "clean energy source."   It is a CLEANER energy source than coal, but not a clean energy source in real terms. It does generate greenhouse gases.  Once this is understood,  fog starts to lift on their thought and decision process.

Natural gas will not be accepted by environmentalist unless Hydrogen Fuel Cells take off and natual gas is used used as a hydrogen source.

The ADB is especially a major scandal: practically all associated gas in Africa is still flared, so investing in collecting the gas would provide Africa a reliable, clean fuel. And save millions of lives a year currently dying from indoor air pollution, cooking with "renewable" dung & wood.

[WayneMechEng + 89]

On 2/21/2020 at 12:37 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing "green energy" projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly "green" alternative. Why? 

Watch "The Future of Water" on Netflix.  The probable answer is China.  China is building huge dams in Africa.  Follow the money.

[NickW + 2,714]

Used the lock down to install this which will crush our annual gas consumption by about 4200kwh.

Enjoyable DIY project with a return on investment of about 13% (tax free). Impressed my Chemical Engineer wife too!

This morning base of hot water cylinder 240 litre hot water cylinder at 19 degrees C at 8am

At 6.00pm the base of cylinder is 58 degrees C (top of tank several degrees higher) even after some day time usage. 

Not bad for mid April. 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by NickW

[Brian Wark 0]

You guys are completely missing the point. In Ontario are down to only 6% annual generation from Nat Gas and zero from coal. Gas does back up the wind and solar and exactly like storage. Today the Gas generation bid into a 5 min market based on demand. Solar and wind reduce that demand dramatically. We have the technology now to have the IESO turn on and turn up Gas turbines automatically to level off the renewables. We used to be at 20% just a few years ago. Much cleaner air all over the province. It costs our family $10 a month. But this doesn't factor in that we will be saving billions in avoided gas contracts since they are based on annual peak demand and the solar has dropped that demand by 2000 MW's or about 5-6 Gas plants worth. Second by reducing the burning of Gas for power generation we now can use the Gas to heat our houses and at a lower price.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

This comment may - or may not - directly connect to the natgas versus wind/solar discussion, but, as the cost of natgas plays a huge role in these matters, today's announcement that Shell is completely bailing out of its Appalachian Basin holdings (for ~10 cents on the dollar, no less), bears noting.  Future projections that incorporate natgas pricing may want to look closely.

In a micro summation, the purchaser, NFG/Seneca Resources is expanding their footprint in North  Central PA for absolutely peanuts in cost.

Their (NFG's) brief comments support analysts' findings that ~$2 mmbtu pricing is a threshold metric for viable operations.

Worldwide, abundant hydrocarbon availability at those prices will reverberate powerfully.

The expected sale of Chevron's assets (pssibly Chesapeake's also) will foreshadow hydrocarbon/energy potentialities for decades to come.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

16 hours ago, Brian Wark said:

You guys are completely missing the point. In Ontario are down to only 6% annual generation from Nat Gas and zero from coal. Gas does back up the wind and solar and exactly like storage. Today the Gas generation bid into a 5 min market based on demand. Solar and wind reduce that demand dramatically. We have the technology now to have the IESO turn on and turn up Gas turbines automatically to level off the renewables. We used to be at 20% just a few years ago. Much cleaner air all over the province. It costs our family $10 a month. But this doesn't factor in that we will be saving billions in avoided gas contracts since they are based on annual peak demand and the solar has dropped that demand by 2000 MW's or about 5-6 Gas plants worth. Second by reducing the burning of Gas for power generation we now can use the Gas to heat our houses and at a lower price.

Uh...  What are we smoking here??? Ontario: roughly 1/3 each of Nuclear/Gas/Hydro.... then WAY down the list is a tiny bit of wind and Way way way way down the list is solar/bio

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 4/20/2020 at 12:18 PM, NickW said:

Used the lock down to install this which will crush our annual gas consumption by about 4200kwh.

Enjoyable DIY project with a return on investment of about 13% (tax free). Impressed my Chemical Engineer wife too!

This morning base of hot water cylinder 240 litre hot water cylinder at 19 degrees C at 8am

At 6.00pm the base of cylinder is 58 degrees C (top of tank several degrees higher) even after some day time usage. 

Not bad for mid April. 

 

 

I'm going to ask you what your actual return was in a year. 

You know what.. it's cool though. 

Edited May 6, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm going to ask you what your actual return was in a year. 

You know what.. it's cool though. 

13% tax free based on current gas prices. 

I did the installation (about 4 full days equivalent) so no labour costs. I put in a twin coil tank in February as we needed a new cylinder anyway. The extra coil and capacity was an extra £150.  In UK climate, against gas prices a commercially installed system probably not worth it although with bank interest rates at 0.1% it might be against watching your savings being deflated away. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

13% tax free based on current gas prices. 

I did the installation (about 4 full days equivalent) so no labour costs. I put in a twin coil tank in February as we needed a new cylinder anyway. The extra coil and capacity was an extra £150.  In UK climate, against gas prices a commercially installed system probably not worth it although with bank interest rates at 0.1% it might be against watching your savings being deflated away. 

That's actually really neat, and a great way to make use of time and good interest rates. Solar thermal is pretty efficient too. 

I've entertained the notion with my father that we should try burying some water pipe under the manure pile to see if we could heat water to a useful temperature with it. It seems rather cost prohibitive, but we're considering it as a way to keeping water open for the cattle (stock watering tank  tends to freeze over without agitation or heat). 

Probably not this year. Depends on how the new dental practice performs, if it opens soon. City inspector comes today. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That's actually really neat, and a great way to make use of time and good interest rates. Solar thermal is pretty efficient too. 

I've entertained the notion with my father that we should try burying some water pipe under the manure pile to see if we could heat water to a useful temperature with it. It seems rather cost prohibitive, but we're considering it as a way to keeping water open for the cattle (stock watering tank  tends to freeze over without agitation or heat). 

Probably not this year. Depends on how the new dental practice performs, if it opens soon. City inspector comes today. 

If its anything like horse manure it will generate loads of heat - issue might be corrosion of pipes. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

If its anything like horse manure it will generate loads of heat - issue might be corrosion of pipes. 

Agreed. We'd go with high density polyethylene, but of course that yields poor conductivity. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

It was always going to happen, Even producing electricity  from imported gas and oil in japan is in the same spot price as generating solar power in the sahara or wind in the UK and Norway

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/27/2020 at 8:41 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Or let them use coal! They are developing and need energy!

You do know that CNG can be delivered by truck right? I think you are talking about areas with roads. Of course gasoline and diesel are more dense and thus more useable if they are available. 

[Meredith Poor + 884]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-01/jinkosolar-starts-panel-plant-that-will-double-its-capacity?sref=RzXyyOXY

Looks like the manufacturers are being crushed all the way to the bank.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

From an environmental perspective, the biggest problem with NG is venting and leakage to the atmosphere. CH4 has 80 times the heat-trapping effect of CO2. Fortunately it has a much shorter half-life, but it's still pretty bad when considered across 30 years. The worst offender is venting at the production sites. leakage throughout the system, all the way down to the residential  distribution pipes, is still pretty bad. It needs to be fixed if we intend to keep using CH4.

CH4 is currently the way the world transports and stores a large and increasing percentage of its energy for electricity. The storage capacity is measured in months, not hours.

Solar and Wind are intermittent on several timescales. If  the system must be designed to accommodate one week of operation with almost no solar or wind, then it must rely on "long-term" storage to support the entire load. This says to me that we must have enough CCGT capacity to handle the daily load (short-term storage can level the peaks). A system that can accommodate a one-week renewables outage can accommodate pretty much any longer outage. But this means that solar and wind are not needed at all!

BUT: solar and wind can be used to generate CH4. The current price of NG is artificially low because it is a byproduct of oil production in the Permian. When the Permian eventually goes dry (between 2025 and 2030?), NG prices will rise.  At the same time, the cost of production of CH4 from solar and wind will continue to fall with economies of scale, and the cost of electricity==>CH4 will continue to fall with technological improvements and then with economies of scale. At some point, this cost drop below the cost of production of NG, and producers will invest their capital in solar/wind==>CH4 systems instead of NG wells and will get better returns.

A theoretical future 100% renewable energy economy could have all electricity from CCGT+short-term battery, and all CH4 from wind and solar. But we can optimize this theoretical system: when solar and wind are available, use the electricity directly instead of making CH4. You still need the same CCGT capacity, but the generators are now running less often, so the total amount of wind and solar is somewhat smaller because of the efficiency gain (electric==>electric vs. electric==>CH4==>electric) for this portion of the total electric supply.

To me, the true advantage of this hare-brained scheme is that it can be implemented completely incrementally and driven completely by the market. Each solar or wind producer can purchase and install CH4 generators and connect them into the existing CH4 collection network, just like a new NG well. No grandiose centralized plan is needed. NG drilling gradually ceases, and system reaches 100% renewable when the last NG well is shut in.

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

For the folks who are interested in the offshore wind industry, the Vole au Vent is scooting up to Halifax this moment to pick up at least one of the two nacelles/blades which are going atop the foundations/Transition Pieces which seem to have already  been emplaced 27 miles off Virginia Beach.

Pretty quick, efficient work so far.