Electrical prices and renewable energy in the USA

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The average increase in prices between the 20 states that had the most investment in renewable energy was 4.3 percent, when comparing the average from 2010 to 2015 with the average over the last 18 months. However, for the 20 states that had the least investment in renewable energy, the average increase was 4.6 percent.**

Therefore, the impact of renewable energy on the price of power appears to be statistically insignificant. Sticking with fossil fuels has not been a pathway to lower energy prices. And this result challenges critics’ assertions that renewable energy is simply too expensive, while fossil fuels will maintain reliable, inexpensive electricity prices.


Again...while a subsidised disruptive energy source (displacing generation in an oversupplied market (oversupplied as there's enough traditional energy to meet needs, these additional generators provide the oversupply)), they are "competetive", and displace traditional generation.

When they displace enough traditional generation, then the renewables will have to do the heavy lifting.

A fully renewable economy will need 3-4 times the nameplate rating of wind/solar for every MW of traditional technology that they displace to harvest the same amount of energy in a 24 hour period...that's simple math, 25% capacity factor versus 90+...

Then it needs to be stored somehow for time of use...Li-tech is $250/MWh round trip lifecycle cost even if it's charged for free...5 times current wholeseale prices.

Simple math really.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The average increase in prices between the 20 states that had the most investment in renewable energy was 4.3 percent, when comparing the average from 2010 to 2015 with the average over the last 18 months. However, for the 20 states that had the least investment in renewable energy, the average increase was 4.6 percent.**

Therefore, the impact of renewable energy on the price of power appears to be statistically insignificant. Sticking with fossil fuels has not been a pathway to lower energy prices. And this result challenges critics’ assertions that renewable energy is simply too expensive, while fossil fuels will maintain reliable, inexpensive electricity prices.


Again...while a subsidised disruptive energy source (displacing generation in an oversupplied market (oversupplied as there's enough traditional energy to meet needs, these additional generators provide the oversupply)), they are "competetive", and displace traditional generation.

When they displace enough traditional generation, then the renewables will have to do the heavy lifting.

A fully renewable economy will need 3-4 times the nameplate rating of wind/solar for every MW of traditional technology that they displace to harvest the same amount of energy in a 24 hour period...that's simple math, 25% capacity factor versus 90+...

Then it needs to be stored somehow for time of use...Li-tech is $250/MWh round trip lifecycle cost even if it's charged for free...5 times current wholeseale prices.

Simple math really.
No where is anyone talking about a fully renewable electric grid.

 

[Shannow]

Prime example here...

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4202671/Re:_Don't_discount_coal_for_a_#Post4202671

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
IEEFA: 40% of Texas coal generation at risk for retirement


A new report released by Public Citizen and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) predicts seven of Texas' 19 coal plants are losing money — possibly to the tune of $160 million annually — and will likely be shuttered if wholesale power prices do not rebound.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) published a long-term resource assessment this summer that estimated nearly 10 GW of coal generation will retire by 2031, with almost all of it replaced by solar.
Coal makes up about a quarter of the state's generation right now, but renewables are being integrated quickly. ERCOT expects solar capacity will grow from 3% to 17% of the capacity mix.


Disruptive renewables leading to oversupply, and a reduction in viability of traditional sources and forcing them out.

They aren't going to sit there and wait for the days that the wind doesn't blow, they close, reducing oversupply during the periods that the wind IS blowing...then it gets expensive.

e.g. this morning is early spring, pretty benign shoulder period, morning peak...black coal 5c/KWh, Black Coal 5c/KWh, the state that pushed out their coal with windmills 8c/KWh, only kept that low by power imports from adjacent brown coal states.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Prime example here...

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4202671/Re:_Don't_discount_coal_for_a_#Post4202671

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
IEEFA: 40% of Texas coal generation at risk for retirement


A new report released by Public Citizen and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) predicts seven of Texas' 19 coal plants are losing money — possibly to the tune of $160 million annually — and will likely be shuttered if wholesale power prices do not rebound.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) published a long-term resource assessment this summer that estimated nearly 10 GW of coal generation will retire by 2031, with almost all of it replaced by solar.
Coal makes up about a quarter of the state's generation right now, but renewables are being integrated quickly. ERCOT expects solar capacity will grow from 3% to 17% of the capacity mix.


Disruptive renewables leading to oversupply, and a reduction in viability of traditional sources and forcing them out.

They aren't going to sit there and wait for the days that the wind doesn't blow, they close, reducing oversupply during the periods that the wind IS blowing...then it gets expensive.

e.g. this morning is early spring, pretty benign shoulder period, morning peak...black coal 5c/KWh, Black Coal 5c/KWh, the state that pushed out their coal with windmills 8c/KWh, only kept that low by power imports from adjacent brown coal states.

So you are saying 3% of the market is putting 40% of the coal plants out of business? More than likely they are old plants and refurbishing to the latest environmental standards is not viable.

 

[SHOZ]

Here's Texas's 2014 generation mix.

Texas 2014

Total electric industry MW 112,914
Coal 24,122
Hydroelectric 671
Natural gas 67,864
Nuclear 4,960
Other 259
Other biomass 125
Other gas 306
Petroleum 60
Solar 186
Wind 13,994
Wood 367

Texas is on an independent grid too.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear


It depends, just finding a place with not too many people complaining would be expensive, and the lawsuits that will be popping up too.

Sometimes it is just easier to buy if your neighbors are already selling cheap energy than to generate your own.


Of course, and that's why they do it. But on a State by State consumption basis, Californian's are being (heavily) subsidized by lesser environmental/legal conditions in other States.

If they had to use up property to make up for the missing 25% in solar panels and wind, I think their prices would be very much higher.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: PandaBear


It depends, just finding a place with not too many people complaining would be expensive, and the lawsuits that will be popping up too.

Sometimes it is just easier to buy if your neighbors are already selling cheap energy than to generate your own.


Of course, and that's why they do it. But on a State by State consumption basis, Californian's are being (heavily) subsidized by lesser environmental/legal conditions in other States.

If they had to use up property to make up for the missing 25% in solar panels and wind, I think their prices would be very much higher.
Should each state be independent of imported power? Illinois has be exporting nuclear power for decades.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ

More than likely they are old plants and refurbishing to the latest environmental standards is not viable.


Entirely possible. Regulators shaping the market so as to achieve their personal preferences.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Should each state be independent of imported power?


In real life? Not at all. But the "study" posted doesn't control for internal vs. external costs. Therefore no State by State comparison can be made.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Should each state be independent of imported power?


In real life? Not at all. But the "study" posted doesn't control for internal vs. external costs. Therefore no State by State comparison can be made.
And yet they manage to compare 40 states to each other.

 

[Kawiguy454]

With all respect to OP Please just simplify the complicated equation down to a much simpler word problem like grade school and it is very plain to see.

Which process is more efficient and so less costly?

1.) A handful of guys and equipment pump chemicals out of the ground and put it in a metal tank. They haul the tank to a generating facility and convert it to electricity on an as needed basis with very little waste.

2.) Add up all the energy and human labor cost needed to dig up all the raw materials needed. Then to manufacture the solar cells, windmills, batteries, Transmission lines, charging stations,control electronics, Etc and also to maintain them. Also consider the power is over produced in mass when the sun is out or wind is blowing forcing you to store any additional energy somewhere at night when the wind stops into another costly system. ...you get the idea?

If you are a reasonable person you should realize there are many many more times the effort necessary to implement #2. In a nutshell this is Inefficiency and without subsidies and schemes no rational person or company would ever adopt it.

Same thing goes for cars. Very dense Chemical energy can easily be stored and used with high efficiency. An equivalent electric vehicle is dependent not only on the chemical side to produce the electricity but also the loads of transmission, storage and usage technologies and infrastructure.

I get tired of hearing the same misguided dreamers ignoring the fundamental physics that govern the real world trying to tell me what a great idea it all is. Maybe its not your fault as the subject has been so convoluted by those that have economic interests they obscure the real world costs.

People are starving cause we're turning food into ethanol. Animals are dying cause the windmills and solar farms are zapping them from the sky by the thousands ...when are you dreamers gonna wake up. Its a big game and you're being had. $.02

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
With all respect to OP Please just simplify the complicated equation down to a much simpler word problem like grade school and it is very plain to see.

Which process is more efficient and so less costly?

1.) A handful of guys and equipment pump chemicals out of the ground and put it in a metal tank. They haul the tank to a generating facility and convert it to electricity on an as needed basis with very little waste.

2.) Add up all the energy and human labor cost needed to dig up all the raw materials needed. Then to manufacture the solar cells, windmills, batteries, Transmission lines, charging stations,control electronics, Etc and also to maintain them. Also consider the power is over produced in mass when the sun is out or wind is blowing forcing you to store any additional energy somewhere at night when the wind stops into another costly system. ...you get the idea?

If you are a reasonable person you should realize there are many many more times the effort necessary to implement #2. In a nutshell this is Inefficiency and without subsidies and schemes no rational person or company would ever adopt it.

Same thing goes for cars. Very dense Chemical energy can easily be stored and used with high efficiency. An equivalent electric vehicle is dependent not only on the chemical side to produce the electricity but also the loads of transmission, storage and usage technologies and infrastructure.

I get tired of hearing the same misguided dreamers ignoring the fundamental physics that govern the real world trying to tell me what a great idea it all is. Maybe its not your fault as the subject has been so convoluted by those that have economic interests they obscure the real world costs.

People are starving cause we're turning food into ethanol. Animals are dying cause the windmills and solar farms are zapping them from the sky by the thousands ...when are you dreamers gonna wake up. Its a big game and you're being had. $.02
There is not much truth to any of that.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Should each state be independent of imported power?


In real life? Not at all. But the "study" posted doesn't control for internal vs. external costs. Therefore no State by State comparison can be made.
And yet they manage to compare 40 states to each other.


Without controlling for external vs. internal cost. This isn't a "study" at all. It's a propaganda piece.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
"Altogether about 75% of power revenue increase will go toward meeting power related mandates — but that includes a number of legislated requirements in addition to renewables and eliminating coal," Tucker said.

And:
Quote:
But at times, as much as 50% of Southern California's electricity still comes from coal-fired plants, Steve Homer, director of project management for the Southern California Public Power Authority, or SCPPA, told SNL Energy.

https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-34113318-14128

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Should each state be independent of imported power?


In real life? Not at all. But the "study" posted doesn't control for internal vs. external costs. Therefore no State by State comparison can be made.
And yet they manage to compare 40 states to each other.


Without controlling for external vs. internal cost. This isn't a "study" at all. It's a propaganda piece.


Given that the source is "renewableenergyworld.com", it isn't like one should expect to get an unbiased and fully vetted study from such a site

That being said, I have no problem with renewables being paid the fair market rate for their power. It is when it is subsidized out the wazoo like it is here in Ontario and then we all have to pay for it through rates that have more than doubled, that's when it gets bad.

If they can stand on their own, they will. If they can't, they will fail. Propping them up through subsidy giving them 10x the market rate is moronic at best and criminal at its worst.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Given that the source is "renewableenergyworld.com", it isn't like one should expect to get an unbiased and fully vetted study from such a site

That being said, I have no problem with renewables being paid the fair market rate for their power. It is when it is subsidized out the wazoo like it is here in Ontario and then we all have to pay for it through rates that have more than doubled, that's when it gets bad.

If they can stand on their own, they will. If they can't, they will fail. Propping them up through subsidy giving them 10x the market rate is moronic at best and criminal at its worst.
One of the reason I put USA in the thread title is to avoid the Canadian pricing problems.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Given that the source is "renewableenergyworld.com", it isn't like one should expect to get an unbiased and fully vetted study from such a site

That being said, I have no problem with renewables being paid the fair market rate for their power. It is when it is subsidized out the wazoo like it is here in Ontario and then we all have to pay for it through rates that have more than doubled, that's when it gets bad.

If they can stand on their own, they will. If they can't, they will fail. Propping them up through subsidy giving them 10x the market rate is moronic at best and criminal at its worst.
One of the reason I put USA in the thread title is to avoid the Canadian pricing problems.


I figured as much, which was why I refrained from trying to take it that direction. You guys haven't headed our direction yet and I really hope you don't.

 

[kschachn]

I think there is a lot of truth to it. What parts exactly is he wrong about?

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
With all respect to OP Please just simplify the complicated equation down to a much simpler word problem like grade school and it is very plain to see.

Which process is more efficient and so less costly?

1.) A handful of guys and equipment pump chemicals out of the ground and put it in a metal tank. They haul the tank to a generating facility and convert it to electricity on an as needed basis with very little waste.

2.) Add up all the energy and human labor cost needed to dig up all the raw materials needed. Then to manufacture the solar cells, windmills, batteries, Transmission lines, charging stations,control electronics, Etc and also to maintain them. Also consider the power is over produced in mass when the sun is out or wind is blowing forcing you to store any additional energy somewhere at night when the wind stops into another costly system. ...you get the idea?

If you are a reasonable person you should realize there are many many more times the effort necessary to implement #2. In a nutshell this is Inefficiency and without subsidies and schemes no rational person or company would ever adopt it.

Same thing goes for cars. Very dense Chemical energy can easily be stored and used with high efficiency. An equivalent electric vehicle is dependent not only on the chemical side to produce the electricity but also the loads of transmission, storage and usage technologies and infrastructure.

I get tired of hearing the same misguided dreamers ignoring the fundamental physics that govern the real world trying to tell me what a great idea it all is. Maybe its not your fault as the subject has been so convoluted by those that have economic interests they obscure the real world costs.

People are starving cause we're turning food into ethanol. Animals are dying cause the windmills and solar farms are zapping them from the sky by the thousands ...when are you dreamers gonna wake up. Its a big game and you're being had. $.02
There is not much truth to any of that.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

If they can stand on their own, they will. If they can't, they will fail. Propping them up through subsidy giving them 10x the market rate is moronic at best and criminal at its worst.

Not always. The Gov underwrites nuclear liability, they fund vaccine development, and yes they give credits to develop wind and solar power. Most don't complain about the first two. Those that live in china can't ever see the blue sky. I will payto see blue sky. It is the Gov's job to insure the well being of its people. That's what we want...except when it costs us money.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

If they can stand on their own, they will. If they can't, they will fail. Propping them up through subsidy giving them 10x the market rate is moronic at best and criminal at its worst.

Not always. The Gov underwrites nuclear liability, they fund vaccine development, and yes they give credits to develop wind and solar power. Most don't complain about the first two. Those that live in china can't ever see the blue sky. I will payto see blue sky. It is the Gov's job to insure the well being of its people. That's what we want...except when it costs us money.


They should be forced to compete cost-wise to comparably green modes of generation like hydro electric. They don't get 10x the market rate for their power, wind and solar shouldn't either.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the wind and solar development credits. I'm talking about the massive rate subsidies we are seeing up here (and is really not what this thread is about, so I apologize to the OP for taking this a bit OT) These are an ongoing (perpetual) cost that is reflected in the bills of many countries (and provinces, like mine). That kind of nonsense doesn't do anybody any good. It drives business out and reduces the pool from which the money to pay for this needs to come from. Then everybody who remains is saddled with an even larger burden to "pay the piper" so to speak.

North America is largely insulated from the insane rates paid in Europe. Even the obscene rates we pay in Ontario are nothing compared to what Germany and Denmark pay. There are already plenty of examples of how far this can go if you let it get away from you.