Page 137 of 197

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 7:48pm
by sendler2112
cricketo wrote:
Feb 25 2019 7:10pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 6:30pm
Electrical pricing by region August 2017.
So you'd consider that site a good source ? Citation from the top of the page :
We’re not here to debate the wind industry – we’re here to destroy it.
Facts are facts. Of course people and media choose to post or ignore them as fits their agenda. I am just a seeker of truth and don't try to spin one way or the other. Please feel free to post something that refutes the pricing as shown above. Like the stories of how the big battery keeps saving SA's ass but it's contribution to the grid is less than 2% of demand and only for a few minutes at a time and is barely visible as miniscule blips at the bottom of the chart.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 7:58pm
by cricketo
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 7:48pm
Please feel free to post something that refutes the pricing as shown above.
Nah, it's okay. Keep reposting stuff from crap websites :)

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 8:01pm
by billvon
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 7:48pm
Facts are facts. Of course people and media choose to post or ignore them as fits their agenda. I am just a seeker of truth and don't try to spin one way or the other. Please feel free to post something that refutes the pricing as shown above. Like the stories of how the big battery keeps saving SA's ass but it's contribution to the grid is less than 2% of demand and only for a few minutes at a time and is barely visible as miniscule blips at the bottom of the chart.
??? Right. The battery is mainly:
-providing ancillary services (frequency and voltage stabilization)
-providing ramp up support (as powerplants trip off line and/or a renewable goes away unexpectedly)

Both those services allow the existing generation to run far closer to capacity and also allow more renewables to be integrated into the grid.

It is doing very little peak shifting since its storage capacity is small in relation to overall energy demands. That's true of most battery systems right now.
Please feel free to post something that refutes the pricing as shown above.
Sure - Texas. It has more wind and solar than any other state - and yet its power prices are below average.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 8:19pm
by sendler2112
billvon wrote:
Feb 25 2019 8:01pm
Right. The battery is mainly:
-providing ancillary services (frequency and voltage stabilization)
-providing ramp up support (as powerplants trip off line and/or a renewable goes away unexpectedly)

Both those services allow the existing generation to run far closer to capacity and also allow more renewables to be integrated into the grid.
Does 50 MW really do anything to fluctuations in a grid running at 3GW with 2 GW of oil and gas?

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 10:16pm
by sendler2112
billvon wrote:
Feb 25 2019 8:01pm
Sure - Texas. It has more wind and solar than any other state - and yet its power prices are below average.
Is natural gas really cheap in Texas?
.
.
Image
.
.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 10:24pm
by billvon
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 8:19pm
Does 50 MW really do anything to fluctuations in a grid running at 3GW with 2 GW of oil and gas?
Definitely - especially since the instantaneous power output (i.e. one-cycle maximum) is a lot higher than 50MW. BYD is now making pretty good money selling 250kw/500kwhr battery systems in a single shipping container. You just order the number you need, they ship them by freighter and they are placed on concrete pads. National grids are using them even in places where there aren't many renewables, because they allow the existing generation to be run much closer to margins (to within 1% of maximum in most cases.)

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 25 2019 10:27pm
by billvon
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 10:16pm
Is natural gas really cheap in Texas?
It's certainly cheaper than here (30% cheaper in TX vs CA.) And here, where power prices are high, we have San Onofre, a nuclear power plant that shut down due to a leak - and we now have to pay to maintain. There's more than one reason power prices are high in places.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 2:51am
by TheBeastie
cricketo wrote:
Feb 25 2019 7:58pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 7:48pm
Please feel free to post something that refutes the pricing as shown above.
Nah, it's okay. Keep reposting stuff from crap websites :)
That electricity price global chart came from Australian Financial Review, one of the most respected and biggest news papers in Australia, they are a daily print paper as well, so this article was actually printed in mass.
So AFR actually are a real and very sue-able newspaper in other words, they do not make mistakes, more or less, if they do they would be forced to make a retraction.
https://www.afr.com/news/australian-hou ... 804-gxp58a
I am directly embedding THEIR image of that chart
Image

It's a pretty simple fact, the more wind-turbines/solar you have and the more you try to actually RELY on them and utilize them, the more your electricity bills go up.
It's no coincidence South Australia, Germany and Denmark and Italy are at the top.
The more coal and even gas thermal generation is ditched in Australia the more electricity bills have shot up.
South Australia more than any other state in the world has tried to rely on their wind-farms as much as possible and the result is the most expensive electricity in the world.

It's actully gone up since that article.
This guy on Twitter frequently posts the latest weekly MWh costing averages in Australia for each state. SA going up like a rocket
https://twitter.com/csfc67/status/1099157884502302721
Electricity Prices in the Australian NEM 24 Jan to 22Feb 2019
Average price $173.70/MWh
Qld Avg price $107.42/MWh

NSW Avg price $121/MWh
SA Avg price $388.36/MWh

Vic Avg price $352.42/MWh
TAS Avg price $156.93/MWh

Why is Victoria and South Australia so much more expensive?

And Victoria is pretty much there as well as they ditch more of their coal generation and try to drop gas generation. Problem with Victoria is the wind is a lot crapper than SA's coastline. Victoria will always have comparatively dog crap wind "Capacity factors"

And we all know about the secret hidden costs.
For example, they are now going to build huge new expensive electricity transmission towers all over the western side of rural/country side Victoria ENTIRELY JUST FOR NEW WIND FARMS..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-17/ ... y/10808534
It's going to devalue all the farm properties because no one likes to live near or look at huge transmission electricity towers.

Because wind-farms have sudden surges of wind the transmission towers have to be extra robust, so all the extra gold-plating is implemented to make wind-farms work just pushes up the cost of electricity bills, but of course, pro-renewables people never attach new expensive transmission towers to a new wind-farm cost.
Everyone just blindly trusts established broadcast media that renewables are cheaper simply because the wind is free, broadcast media don't care what the truth is, they just want something to say for folks to listen too.
The false economy of old protected broadcast media adds to the problem. My biggest hope is that broadcast media is destroyed by IP-streaming only media via technologies like 5G. Broadcast media is just cancer on the world.

Most of the big fossil fuel corporations have happily embraced renewable energy, have you ever wondered why?
The big fossil fuel companies hire all sorts of very smart people, traditionally fossil fuel companies have even been one the biggest users of supercomputers for things like geological surveying of where fossil fuels might be etc.

It's clear the big fossil fuel companies did the numbers and modelling a long time ago and worked out that the ONLY THING POSSIBLE wind/solar can do is push up the cost of energy overall, which is just simply perfect for the big fossil fuel guys.
So, of course, they embrace it.
The biggest problem big energy companies have is being able to push up energy prices without everyone noticing it.
Their situation of having traditional simple industry where energy is just sucked out of the ground made it hard to hide any price gouging, but advent of renewables makes the perfect cover and complication of the energy market, greenies/leftists/politicians pushing renewables for their own little devious gains is literally a gift from God for the big energy corporations.

All the wind/solar subsidies and RET false economies built on more false economies that these renewables cause that just completely distort the frock out of the market, no one wants to build reliable normal generation because the rules are that if the wind blows the electricity retailers HAVE to buy that electricity first.

It's like having two petrol stations, if the "renewable petrol station" randomly opened and the rules were everyone MUST buy from them whenever they are randomly open, would you bother trying to build a traditional petrol station next to them? no never!
It just wouldn't be worth it, and if you did you would charge big dollars for when anyone did come into buy fuel.
This is what subsidies and RET rules/false economies create with wind/solar on the grid. It's a mini version of socialism but on the electricity grid.. Venezuela anyone? https://twitter.com/Edwinsson/status/11 ... 8338796544
Capitalism works because it creates competition, socialism fails because it removes competition.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 3:14am
by Punx0r
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 6:30pm
Electrical pricing by region August 2017.
https://stopthesethings.files.wordpress ... =460&h=659
Please remove any costs that are not inherent to the generating technology, such as taxes. Although, then you'll end up at something akin to LCOE, which doesn't support the what you're aiming to prove about the cost of renewables...

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 9:42am
by cricketo
TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 26 2019 2:51am
It's a pretty simple fact, the more wind-turbines/solar you have and the more you try to actually RELY on them and utilize them, the more your electricity bills go up.
You better figure it out, because they're here to stay :)

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 12:10pm
by jimw1960
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 10:16pm
billvon wrote:
Feb 25 2019 8:01pm
Sure - Texas. It has more wind and solar than any other state - and yet its power prices are below average.
Is natural gas really cheap in Texas?
.
I'm from San Antonio Texas. Last year our utility, CPS Energy, got 22% of its power from wind and solar, 18% from nuclear, and we also shut down two of the four coal plants. On my electric bill last month, I paid just under $0.09 per kilowatt, including all fuel adjustment and regulatory surcharges. Their current plan calls for 50% renewables by 2040 and less than 20% from fossil fuels, even though they anticipate the area population growing by over 1 million by then. It's doable and they are doing it, so all you naysayers get out of the way get on with doing.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 12:12pm
by billvon
TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 26 2019 2:51am
It's a pretty simple fact, the more wind-turbines/solar you have and the more you try to actually RELY on them and utilize them, the more your electricity bills go up.
And yet power bills have gone down in Texas, which has the highest wind+solar generation in the country.

Perhaps there is a lesson here - you can rely on solar and wind if you do a good job designing the system.
Everyone just blindly trusts established broadcast media that renewables are cheaper simply because the wind is free, broadcast media don't care what the truth is, they just want something to say for folks to listen too.
Just as you blindly trust anyone who disparages renewables.
The false economy of old protected broadcast media adds to the problem. My biggest hope is that broadcast media is destroyed by IP-streaming only media via technologies like 5G. Broadcast media is just cancer on the world.
Eh, once 5G-based pull media becomes popular, you will decide they are the new cancer since they won't say what you want either.
Most of the big fossil fuel corporations have happily embraced renewable energy, have you ever wondered why?
Same reason carriers are embracing 5G. The world is changing and they don't want to be left behind.
The biggest problem big energy companies have is being able to push up energy prices without everyone noticing it.
Their situation of having traditional simple industry where energy is just sucked out of the ground made it hard to hide any price gouging, but advent of renewables makes the perfect cover and complication of the energy market, greenies/leftists/politicians pushing renewables for their own little devious gains is literally a gift from God for the big energy corporations.
Again - Texas. It is going to be very hard to claim that Texas is some kind of greenie/leftist 'trick.'
All the wind/solar subsidies and RET false economies built on more false economies that these renewables cause that just completely distort the frock out of the market, no one wants to build reliable normal generation because the rules are that if the wind blows the electricity retailers HAVE to buy that electricity first.
Yep. And you can apply all the same claims to cars taking over from horses. More expensive! Conspiracy of car companies and urban planners! Horses reproduce; cars don't! Road taxes are hidden fees! There is NO WAY any car will EVER be economical to use!

Still, the smart money was on cars.
It's like having two petrol stations, if the "renewable petrol station" randomly opened and the rules were everyone MUST buy from them whenever they are randomly open, would you bother trying to build a traditional petrol station next to them? no never!
Of course you would. People pay for convenience. That's like claiming there is no intersection in the US with more than one gas station on it. Because who would buy gas from a station when the station next to them is cheaper? NO ONE? EVER? Actually they do, quite often.
It just wouldn't be worth it, and if you did you would charge big dollars for when anyone did come into buy fuel.
This is what subsidies and RET rules/false economies create with wind/solar on the grid. It's a mini version of socialism but on the electricity grid.. Venezuela anyone? Capitalism works because it creates competition, socialism fails because it removes competition.
Ah, so now socialism. Because in solar, there's no competition for cost.

You've gotten so angry that you've stopped making sense.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 12:56pm
by sendler2112
Texas wind is just about keeping up with growth. Solar is a very small amount. Gas is the only thing that is displacing coal due to super cheap supplies from new fraking technology.
.
.
Image
.
.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 1:00pm
by sendler2112
I stumbled upon this article while researching Texas electricity.
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016 ... ectricity/
.
To sum up, when intermittent electricity is added to the electric grid, the primary savings are fuel savings. At the same time, significant costs of many different types are added, acting to offset these savings. In fact, it is not even clear that when a comparison is made, the benefits of adding intermittent electricity are greater than the costs involved.
.
.
Image
.
.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 1:07pm
by billvon
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 1:00pm
To sum up, when intermittent electricity is added to the electric grid, the primary savings are fuel savings. At the same time, significant costs of many different types are added, acting to offset these savings. In fact, it is not even clear that when a comparison is made, the benefits of adding intermittent electricity are greater than the costs involved.
Yep. From the data I've seen here it's about a wash. Fuel costs go down but network capital costs increase. On the other hand, once the capital improvements are done then they're done and costs go down again.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 1:12pm
by sendler2112
Not to mention the fact that within 20 years we will see the end of cheap liquid fuel and 50 years after that, the end of cheap natural gas. Whatever we can build out to replace it, even if it is intermittent, will be much better than nothing. In addition to the ongoing issue of increasing CO2 concentrations.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 1:36pm
by jimw1960
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 12:56pm
Texas wind is just about keeping up with growth. Solar is a very small amount. Gas is the only thing that is displacing coal due to super cheap supplies from new fraking technology.
.
.
Image
.
.
That graph is from 2015. While I can't speak for the entire state of Texas, San Antonio has doubled its wind energy consumption since then, all while the metropolitan area population has increased by over 200,000 people, and closing two coal plants.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 1:51pm
by sendler2112
jimw1960 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 1:36pm
That graph is from 2015.
Texas wind was 9.1% in 2014, 12.6% in 2016, 14.8% in 2017.
.
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 1:53pm
by billvon
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 1:51pm
Texas wind was 9.1% in 2014, 12.6% in 2016, 14.8% in 2017.
Keep that up and you are over 50% renewables within 20 years. Not bad.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 2:02pm
by jimw1960
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 1:51pm
jimw1960 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 1:36pm
That graph is from 2015.
Texas wind was 9.1% in 2014, 12.6% in 2016, 14.8% in 2017.
.
When I checked my calendar this morning, it was 2019. They just completed a major transmission line from West Texas in late 2017 that is facilitating a faster ramp-up of wind use, at least here in central Texas. As I mentioned earlier, we went over 22% in 2018 and still growing wind use rapidly. Our municipally owned utility's Flexible Path plan calls for only 20% of generation from fossil fuels by 2040. Our city's draft Climate Action and Adaptation plan is aligned with that and also calls for zero generation from fossil fuel by 2050. We will be totally off of coal by 2030.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 2:18pm
by sendler2112
jimw1960 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 2:02pm

When I checked my calendar this morning, it was 2019.
When I checked your post, I see no reference to anything in print. So I went looking for data but the newest I could find was 2017.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 2:45pm
by jimw1960
Link to CPS Energy Flexible Path plan through 2040.
https://cpsenergy.com/flexiblepath

Link to City of San Antonio draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (which I helped to produce):
https://saclimateready.org/wp-content/u ... s-1-25.pdf

ERCOT past and future projections for capacity changes by fuel type: (go to page and click on link to download Capacity Changes by Fuel Type for January 2019, you will see a significant jump in projected wind capacity for 2019 based on deals that are already signed, which does not preclude signing even more deals that what is projected. You can also see projected significant jump in solar and a big chunk of battery coming on line in 2021, but gas generation projections hold steady. By 2022, wind alone will be on par with gas generation. Not sure why they don't show coal and nuclear, but coal is definitely going away)
: http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/resource

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 4:37pm
by sendler2112
jimw1960 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 2:45pm
ERCOT past and future projections for capacity changes by fuel type:
Texas wind grew by 17% of installed capacity from 2017-2018. The smallest year on year increase since 2012. So make the wind share roughly 17.3 % instead of 14.8% on the chart above.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 6:12pm
by Hillhater
billvon wrote:
Feb 25 2019 8:01pm
...
Sure - Texas. It has more wind and solar than any other state - and yet its power prices are below average.
Ahhh ! Very creative use of data bill. !
Texas may have more installed wind capacity (23 GW?) than other states, but it also has more installed capacity overall , (124+ GW) , with Gas being the main generation fuel source, such that they do not have the highest % wind and solar.....and they have huge reserve capacity for when the wind and sun are not producing.
Also, since Texas produces more oil, gas, and coal than other states, no one should be surprised that their electricity (mostly gas generated) ...prices are low .
Texas electricity price has little to do with Wind and Solar, infact it was cheaper before they becane generation sources !
USA's "showcase" state for wind, solar, and RE generally is California, with over 50% of its electricity generation capacity being RE,..Wind, Solar, Hydro, Biomass, Geothermal, etc. The majority of the remainder being N Gas.
However....the result is that California is also the state with the highest electricity retail prices, ..40% higher than the US average.
jimw1960 wrote:
Feb 26 2019 2:45pm

ERCOT past and future projections for capacity changes by fuel type:
: http://www.ercot.com/gridinfo/resource
......jim, i assume you are aware of the difference between "INSTALLED CAPACITY". ..and. "GENERATED OUTPUT".? :roll: 🤔

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Feb 26 2019 6:49pm
by cricketo
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 26 2019 6:12pm
However....the result is that California is also the state with the highest electricity retail prices, ..40% higher than the US average.
That's obviously because they're leftist progressive socialists. Socialist wind costs more than Texan capitalist wind.