Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 12:14:50

k - "Coal and nuclear plants have very little flexibility -- it is difficult for them to increase or decrease their output in response to commands from the grid operator." Ignoring the insignificant numbers of systems currently in operation wouldn't grid scale battery storage represent the ideal "baseload". The UK utility is currently investing $125+ million in 8 such systems that can respond in less then one second to supply shortages. Rather difficult for a coal/NG plant to respond that quickly. Of course the magnitude of the shortage is critical. But if that need is relatively small a fossil fuel plant can't shut down in less then a second either.

But if the ultimate shortage is too large for the battery system they can potentially cover the need until the fossil fuel plants can kick in. And while the battery systems could be beneficial to alt intermittent problems they can also be charged by fossil fuel plants as they cycle down due to sudden demand decreases.

But such possibilities will require a lot of grid battery build out. In the US if it happens it will probably be in Texas first. Given our independent grid and the czar like control of ERCOT it should be more easily adapted here then in the two national grids. And we already have E.ON building such a system in Texas today. And since those German's are profit motivated if the numbers prove out we might expect a rapid expansion of grid storage. Especially with solar beginning to boom in Texas and its obvious intermittent issue.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 12:34:01

coffee - Valid points...for today. But how true when NG goes from $3/MCF to $6...or $9? Or when domestic coal prices double as they recently did in Australia? As the politicians in Georgetown, Texas pointed out: the town is willing to pay more INITIALLY for wind and solar power to meet its goal of 100% renewable. But it has nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with long term economics and supply.

They may prove wrong in the next 10 years. Or be proved to be some of the smartest politicians in the country. Time will tell.

Also I wouldn't be surprised to see E.ON add grid storage (if it does prove to be profitable) to the wind and solar providers of Georgetown. If they fall short of demand they'll have to buy from the spot market. And that could be a big money loser for as long as that period lasts. They might cut E.ON a bigger piece of the pie initially as insurance.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 12:51:42

If the price of fossil fuels increase in the future then the value of the electricity produced by wind and solar will also increase so that is pretty much a self balancing equation. As to the need of "base load" power any utility will have some users on line at any given time of the day and the utility has to deliver that load. Call it base load or minimum load or any other name you care to call it you still have to produce it and that amount can be pretty well predicted based on recent demands for the same time of day and day of week. The utility of course tries to produce that minimum from it's cheapest sources and only use more expensive power sources for topping off to peak demands.
A utility here in Vermont got criticized for not using wind power when the wind was blowing because they had a cheaper source leaving the wind power producer with no market.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 13:53:59

vt - "If the price of fossil fuels increase in the future then the value of the electricity produced by wind and solar will also increase so that is pretty much a self balancing equation." If by "value" you mean the price the consumer will pay then that's not true. For instance in the long term contract Georgetown signed with the solar and wind providers the price schedule is fixed for the next 20 years. IOW if the price of NG sourced electricity increases say 4X the Georgetown consumers will still pay the same price as per the contract. And I believe that holds true for other companies, like Google and Amazon, that have signed long term contracts with alt energy providers. Essentially why both sides sign such contracts in the first place: to guarantee long term prices and revenue.

But you're correct about govt incentives: it can actually allow wind power producers, thanks to absolute control by ERCOT, to sell power into the grid at a negative price. Yes: sell for a negative charge. Complicated explanation so here's the short version.

Back in 2015 a very strange thing happened: The so-called spot price of electricity in Texas fell toward zero, hit zero, and then went negative for several hours. Power producers were paying the state’s electricity system to take electricity off their hands. At one point, the negative price was $8.52 per megawatt hour.

ERCOT has set up the grid in such a way that it acquires a large amount of power through continuous auctions. Every five minutes, power generators in the state electronically bid into ERCOT’s real-time market, offering to provide chunks of energy at particular prices. ERCOT fills the open needs by selecting the bids that are cheapest and that make the most sense from a grid-management perspective—i.e., the power is being fed into the grid at points where the distribution and transmission systems can handle it. Every 15 minutes, the bids settle.

This gives wind-farm owners a great incentive to lower their prices. The data show that the clearing price in the real-time market went from $17.40 per megawatt-hour for the interval ending 12:15 a.m., to zero for the interval ending 1:45 a.m. Then it went into negative territory and stayed at zero or less until about 8:15 a.m. For the interval ending 5:45 a.m., the real-time price of electricity in Texas was minus $8.52 per megawatt-hour.

It cost very little to keep turbines moving once they’ve been built. But wind operators have another advantage over generators that use coal or natural gas: a federal production tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour that applies to every kilowatt of power produced. And that means that even if wind operators give the power away or offer the system money to take it, they still receive a tax credit equal to $23 per megawatt-hour. Those tax credits have a monetary value.

One of the reasons the wind and solar providers cut Georgetown consumers a good deal: if they have excess power they can sell into a high priced spot market: big profits. And if they have to sell into an over supplied spot market: fat tax credits.

So thanks to ERCOT's control of the isolated Texas grid, our growing electricity demand, decreasing infrastructure costs, E.ON building out grid scale storage and some govt incentives Texas alt seems likely to keep growing big time.

And again all the more interesting being done in the largest petroleum producing state in the country. Where ERCOT can provide a big advantage to alt producers over petroleum producers. So much for the power of those fossil fuel producers.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 14:21:27

ROCKMAN wrote:Ignoring the insignificant numbers of systems currently in operation wouldn't grid scale battery storage represent the ideal "baseload". The UK utility is currently investing $125+ million in 8 such systems that can respond in less then one second to supply shortages. Rather difficult for a coal/NG plant to respond that quickly. Of course the magnitude of the shortage is critical. But if that need is relatively small a fossil fuel plant can't shut down in less then a second either.

But if the ultimate shortage is too large for the battery system they can potentially cover the need until the fossil fuel plants can kick in. And while the battery systems could be beneficial to alt intermittent problems they can also be charged by fossil fuel plants as they cycle down due to sudden demand decreases.

But such possibilities will require a lot of grid battery build out.
Well I'm not sure how much longer the term baseload will be relevant. But in the traditional sense, batteries are not a good fit for baseload. Too expensive and too short a cycle life. Batteries are more valuable for their flexibility. So I think they would function better in the role of things like ancillary services, peak shaving, complementing intermittent renewables, etc.

And I am not sure if grid storage batteries today are standing on their own merits or are merely being propped up by subsidies, mandates, cheap loans, etc.
Looking forward, however, limits to this trajectory are apparent. The PJM frequency regulation market may soon be saturated, and in other wholesale markets, technologies other than batteries may be more cost-effective for providing ancillary services. FERC recently opened a proceeding to explore barriers to greater participation of energy storage in wholesale markets. But the slow pace with which its 2011 orders have been implemented suggests that its leverage may be limited.

Most of these other applications are not yet cost-effective, although specific projects in specific locations, such as at the distribution level in dense urban areas, may be. Stacking multiple services on a single storage system may also bring more projects within reach at today’s battery prices. But the “levelized cost of storage,” to use the terms of Lazard’s recent analysis, is generally higher than the alternative in every use case. Similarly, Hittinger and Lueken argue that falling natural gas prices have adversely affected the revenues of U.S. energy storage projects since 2009, because they must compete with gas turbines for peak shifting purposes.

The biggest drivers of the next phase of grid-scale battery deployment are likely to be state mandates, rather than markets. Most notably, California utilities are required to procure 1.3 GW of storage by 2020 (none of which is yet recorded in the DOE Global Storage Database), provide incentives for customer-sited storage resources, and include storage among preferred resources for distributed generation and demand management. Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington are among the other states that are mandating or subsidizing electricity storage on a reasonably large scale.51 (See Figure 21.) Given the difficulties of siting pumped hydro and CAES as well as the growing experience with batteries, it seems highly likely that such mandates will led to growth in the grid-scale battery market.
Deployment of Grid-Scale Batteries in the United States

Look what happened when PJM changed the rules in their frequency regulation market. The energy storage companies started howling bloody murder.

Changes in PJM's frequency regulation have soured the market for battery storage there. After an initial boom that began to overwhelm PJM’s frequency regulation market, the RTO put the brakes on battery storage installations. PJM quickly followed up by changing the parameters of its frequency regulation signal and then proposed further changes in how it calibrates the relationship between fast response resources, such as batteries, and conventional resources, such as gas turbines. Those changes were met with howls of protest by energy storage developers, some of who are contesting the changes at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

By mid-year 2016, PJM had about 265 MW of grid-connected storage projects, of which about 160 MW were installed in 2015, and with about 700 MW more under construction or in development. The rush of projects also exposed some flaws in the design of PJM’s frequency regulation market. Sometimes a battery providing fast ramping frequency regulation service would be depleted and go from discharge to charging mode, burdening the grid instead of supporting it. “The RegD signal would sometimes move in the opposite direction of the area control error [ACE], exacerbating the frequency regulation problem.” When that would happen, PJM would in effect be paying for RegA in order to cancel out the draw of RegD resources on the system. RegD resources respond quickly to ACE signals, but are time limited. RegA resources respond to signals more slowly but do not have duration limits, so the technical trick is to find the optimal mix of RegD and RegA on the system. RegD has more value for quick response needs, but too much RegD and that benefit would be reversed and could even harm the grid.

Project margins reduced 75%
In a July letter to PJM, AES Energy Storage said it designed its 20 MW Tait storage facility in Ohio and its 32 MW Laurel Mountain facility in West Virginia with PJM’s 15 minute design specifications in mind. AES says PJM’s December and January changes to the RegD market have reduced the 2016 margins for those projects by 75% compared with 2015 margins. In addition, AES says operating under the new rules “has greatly reduced the expected useful equipment life and seriously threatens the continued viability of these batteries.” Those batteries are now “doing twice the work for half the revenues while shortening their remaining life,” AES said in the filing. In the ESA complaint filed with FERC, Damien Buie, with EDF Renewable Energy, said the company’s 20 MW McHenry storage project in Illinois “has been significantly and detrimentally impacted by PJM’s January 9, 2017, decision.”

Storage projects dropping out
The result, said Finn-Foley, is that storage projects are dropping out of the interconnection queue. “We are seeing a handful drop off every quarter.”
Is the bloom off the RegD rose for battery storage in PJM?

This could just be growing pains though where we haven't found the right mix of regulations, price signals, etc.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 14:58:51

Remember that every twenty EVs or so will amount to a megawatt of battery storage assuming fifteen of the twenty will be plugged in at any given time. I'm sure some clever engineer will find a way to vary the charging rate of these cars to smooth out demand and keep voltage and cycle speed in line.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 10:21:52

k - Yep, perhaps backup is a better term then "baseload" with respect to the alts. A couple of winters ago wind saved Texas from blackout when a polar vortex knocked out 2 NG fired plants. But envision a day when wind/solar provide half the "baseload" as it comes close to doing on some nights in Texas. Now jump one more leap forward and consider when the alts produce more the 50% of daily demand and that excess charges battery systems. So at that point what is providing the "baseload"...fossil fuels or the alts? Granted we are a long way from that day on a national level...maybe never get there. But there is the potential for Texas.

After all there are numerous countries that have 80% to 100% of their "baseload" supplied by alt sources. Granted those sources are hydro which also eliminates the battery issue. But regardless they are doing OK without a ff sourced baseload thanks to their geography.

And let's face it eventually every country currently dependent on fossil fuels for its baseload will have to build out the alts. Or burn a lot more coal...at least till it runs out.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 10:43:17

NYT article says Renewables are not doing the job in lowering CO2 intensity, despite spending trillions on wind and solar. If the goal is to lower CO2 emissions, this is a massive failure given the amount of money and effort spent over the past 20 years since the Kyoto Accord. Going to be an economic mess in 10-15 years for the countries that have gone in big on expensive wind and solar as the aging wind turbines and solar panels wear out and need replacing. The Red Queen is coming for wind and solar generation. And Cloggie what's up with the Netherlands, pretty low on the totem pole of countries using renewables, too flat for hydropower?

"............the world’s carbon intensity of energy.
The term refers to a measure of the amount of CO2 spewed into the air for each unit of energy consumed. It offers some bad news: It has not budged since that chilly autumn day in Kyoto 20 years ago. Even among the highly industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the carbon intensity of energy has declined by a paltry 4 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency.

Over the past 10 years, governments and private investors have collectively spent $2 trillion on infrastructure to draw electricity from the wind and the sun, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates nuclear power as an essential tool in the battle against climate change, says that exceeds the total cost of all nuclear plants built to date or under construction, adjusted for inflation."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/busi ... ables.html
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 13:54:21

The earliest known wind powered grain mills and water pumps were used by the Persians in A.D. 500-900

Progress? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I guess 1000's of years from now the energy device of the future will be

The Windmill.

Year 2165: New and improved Windmills are ready for deployment.

Billions are gonna die and you hapless clowns are just jabbering about.
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 14:55:45

What happened to all the harmony between Ponzi Gas and Bird Choppers?

The Carnival Barker from the Ponzi Gas "Industry" surely doesn't think those hordes of electrical engineers and brainless pseudos in the pinko universities are gonna embrace ng without useless Bird Choppers having priority on the grid?

What are all these scammers gonna "invest" in if not Wind Scams?
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 16:50:20

jaw - "If the goal is to lower CO2 emissions, this is a massive failure given the amount of money and effort spent over the past 20 years since the Kyoto Accord." As I've repeatedly pointed out Texas didn't develop world class wind power with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. It wasn't even a secondary consideration. After all:

"Texas emitted more carbon dioxide from burning energy in 2013 than it did at any point since 2004. And, for at least the 24th year in a row, the Lone Star State tops the list of the nation’s biggest carbon polluters, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration."

Check the chart: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carb ... ates-19615

What our wind power build out did accomplish was preventing an equivalent expansion of our fossil fuel fired generation: we were going to expand one way or the other to meet our growing demand.

Folks can f*ck around with the economic numbers all they want but it doesn't change the fact: every wind farm built in Texas was done because of a profit motive. And given they continued to be built profits must have been realized. And while the fed tax credits are a benefit the value is there only if the investment is producing a taxable profit. IOW losing money means no profit to apply the credit to.

The two wind and solar companies that will supply Georgetown, Texas, with 100% alt electricity are doing so to make a profit. And thanks to a contracted rate structure with the utility company the profit IS NOT theoretical: it's locked in from Day 1. And now E.ON is building grid scale battery story to be fed by two wind farms it owns in Texas. And this isn't the first such effort by those Germans. Having done it before they should have a good handle on the profitability: they aren't subsidizing Texas alt out of the goodness of their hearts. LOL.

Texas does have have some geographic advantages over other states. But that's not the primary reason why we've expanded alts so quickly: OK has the same strong winds just across the state line. We have ERCOT: it is composed of electricity generators, transmission companies, consumers via the utility commission and the state's politicians. Essentially it's forces cooperation amongst all parties to provide not just the lowest possible rates but also accetable profit margins for the investors. Membership isn't really voluntary: you either cooperate with the ERCOT regulations or you don't participate in the state's power generation system as a provider or consumer. And given that Texas is by far the biggest electricity consumer in the country that's a very big pie to grab a slice of.

ERCOT comes as close to a "benevolent overlord" as we'll ever see in this country. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 18:30:27

ROCKMAN

In a weird way you are a very hard line cc realist.

Hope I’m not outing you

Did you listen to that short interview with Rees (Global Footprint guy) on our front page about a week ago?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 19:32:06

ROCKMAN wrote:jaw - "If the goal is to lower CO2 emissions, this is a massive failure given the amount of money and effort spent over the past 20 years since the Kyoto Accord." As I've repeatedly pointed out Texas didn't develop world class wind power with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. It wasn't even a secondary consideration. After all:

"Texas emitted more carbon dioxide from burning energy in 2013 than it did at any point since 2004. And, for at least the 24th year in a row, the Lone Star State tops the list of the nation’s biggest carbon polluters, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration."

Check the chart: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carb ... ates-19615

What our wind power build out did accomplish was preventing an equivalent expansion of our fossil fuel fired generation: we were going to expand one way or the other to meet our growing demand.

Folks can f*ck around with the economic numbers all they want but it doesn't change the fact: every wind farm built in Texas was done because of a profit motive. And given they continued to be built profits must have been realized. And while the fed tax credits are a benefit the value is there only if the investment is producing a taxable profit. IOW losing money means no profit to apply the credit to.

The two wind and solar companies that will supply Georgetown, Texas, with 100% alt electricity are doing so to make a profit. And thanks to a contracted rate structure with the utility company the profit IS NOT theoretical: it's locked in from Day 1. And now E.ON is building grid scale battery story to be fed by two wind farms it owns in Texas. And this isn't the first such effort by those Germans. Having done it before they should have a good handle on the profitability: they aren't subsidizing Texas alt out of the goodness of their hearts. LOL.

Texas does have have some geographic advantages over other states. But that's not the primary reason why we've expanded alts so quickly: OK has the same strong winds just across the state line. We have ERCOT: it is composed of electricity generators, transmission companies, consumers via the utility commission and the state's politicians. Essentially it's forces cooperation amongst all parties to provide not just the lowest possible rates but also accetable profit margins for the investors. Membership isn't really voluntary: you either cooperate with the ERCOT regulations or you don't participate in the state's power generation system as a provider or consumer. And given that Texas is by far the biggest electricity consumer in the country that's a very big pie to grab a slice of.

ERCOT comes as close to a "benevolent overlord" as we'll ever see in this country. LOL.


Rockman a 2 second internet search on Texas wind farm subsidies should make it apparent Texas wind power is highly subsidized. Texas like all other states and provinces with large wind power generation has created a guaranteed market for wind power and if the wind blows consumers have to pay for this power even if it is not needed. This can drive power prices into the negative, which hurts traditional power producers who are stuck with fluctuating market rates. If the wind power industry existed on market rates there would only be galvanized steel windmills pumping water on the dry West Texas landscape. Texas wind energy will be in the shitter like all the rest once the government subsidies end.

"Wind power in Texas receives subsidies regardless of whether power prices are positive or negative. Wind power has occasionally supplied 14 GW in Texas, about half the consumption in the somewhat islanded state.[23][24][25]."

"In fact, federal tax subsidies for wind power are so large, that Texas wind generators have begun to pay people to take their electricity, just so they can be eligible for the subsidy. "

"In 2014 and 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration, during times of peak demand, the average wholesale price of electricity was about $50 per megawatt-hour. Last winter in Texas, peak wholesale electricity prices averaged $21 per megawatt hour. Thus, on the national level, wind-energy subsidies are worth nearly half the cost of wholesale power, and in the Texas market, those subsidies can actually exceed the wholesale price of electricity."


https://www.texaspolicy.com/content/det ... ubsidies-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ax-dollars
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 11:36:29

Good time, perhaps, for folks to do a little checking up on exactly what the ITCs and PTCs actually are. (Investment Tax Credits/Production Tax Credits).
I will repeat a statement previously made, whirleys would shut down tomorrow sans subsidies. Check out the statement by the US' largest owner of whirley farms, made in 2014, Warren Buffet claiming they made no economic sense without credits.

North Dakota just looked into taxing the income on whirley farms in the state and discovered income was zero.

These credits are also transferable.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 11:43:00

coffeeguyzz wrote:Good time, perhaps, for folks to do a little checking up on exactly what the ITCs and PTCs actually are. (Investment Tax Credits/Production Tax Credits).
I will repeat a statement previously made, whirleys would shut down tomorrow sans subsidies. Check out the statement by the US' largest owner of whirley farms, made in 2014, Warren Buffet claiming they made no economic sense without credits.

North Dakota just looked into taxing the income on whirley farms in the state and discovered income was zero.

These credits are also transferable.


Yet wind generated a record total of 226 million megawatt-hours (MWh) to US grids in 2016 (EIA). Just sayin'.....
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 12:03:52

Ghung

Suggest you do a quick check on the Scot wind farm situation where the production is both large and increasing.

As was stated above, not only can whirley producers crank out the juice without worrying about profit making, their advantages destroy legacy producers as juice price drops (see South Australia for advanced state of this situation) , which is why the nuke boys are heading out the door toot sweet.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 12:16:34

coffeeguyzz wrote:Ghung

Suggest you do a quick check on the Scot wind farm situation where the production is both large and increasing.

As was stated above, not only can whirley producers crank out the juice without worrying about profit making, their advantages destroy legacy producers as juice price drops (see South Australia for advanced state of this situation) , which is why the nuke boys are heading out the door toot sweet.


The nuke boys are probably heading out the door because Southern Company is losing its ass trying to build two new AP-1000 reactors at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia (not to mention the Westinghouse bankruptcy), despite billions in guaranteed federal loans and incentives. Grossly over budget and behind schedule.
Southeast rate payers beware.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 12:29:26

Not just the nukes being built, long term producers in New York and Ohio just got government incentives to stay operating.
Huge (2,000 Mw) nuke plant in Connecticut - Millstone - is in process of getting legislative assistance to keep their turbines spinning.
If Millstone were to shut down, New England would be in a world of hurt.
The price of natgas fueled electricity is exceptionally cheap, which pressures competitors in free market wholesale market.
(Pull up ISO site for real time New England electricity pricing at wholesale level).
Throw in perks for whirleys like 23 bucks per Mw produced - needed or not - and things get screwy real quick.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 12:46:18

Hell, you folks are forgetting one of the biggest "gifts" to the Texas wind industry from our consumers: $7 BILLION in tax payer money to expand our grid. Without which there might not be a single west Texas wind farm. Hell again, forget subsidies: how about the consumers in Georgetown, Texas, initially paying ABOVE market rate for the electricity that will make the city run on 100% alt? And they voluntary chose to do so.

Forks get such a hard on over whatever financial leverage is provided that will ultimately benefit consumers. Talk about huge subsidies: what about home mortgage write offs? And govt subsidized lending that still allows folks to borrow with as little as 1% down even after the subprime melt down? What about the depletion deduction given to the Texas petroleum industry? The deduction that helped make Texas the largest producer in the country with production taxes building the $10+ BILLION sovereign fund owned by our citizens? You never hear anyone in Texas bitching about the depletion allowance do you?

Seems like many forget the ultimate goal of any of these programs: public benefit. Looking at any portion of the system as if exist in a vacuum by itself its pointless...and dishonest IMO. You don't hear the Texas tax payers complaining about the $7 BILLION they chipped to support wind development. Maybe because at $.086 per kWh Texas, the largest electricity consumer in the country, is lower then that of 40 other states and about half that of many New England states. And what about our job growth thanks to companies locating in Texas to take advantage of our lower energy costs...including a couple from Europe? And that's today with cheap NG generating much of our electricity. And when fuel prices double or triple?

Wind development in Texas has been profitable for investors AND consumers for a variety of reasons. And will be even more so when NG prices inevitably increase. That's the whole story. Piss and moan all you want: Texas is one of the WORLD'S leading wind power producers. And likely will be in a similar position with solar and maybe even grid storage not too many years down the road.

And leaving the rest of y'all in the west Texas dust. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 09 Nov 2017, 12:51:29

"...their advantages destroy legacy producers as juice price drops..." So reducing fossil fuel consumption by any means is a bad thing? Damn you, fellow destroyer of the climate!!! LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests