ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, you're not reading context. Please read any of the material I've posted. You're also making very broad generalizations and assumptions without much factual support. For instance, see my post above on inertia and how renewables actually reduce the need for it. 

Firming costs are those incurred because of the intermittent nature of renewables. How that problem is resolved can vary. 

You are just googling topics and posting links without understanding the content.  Inertia, real power, reactive power, and power factor are all relevant to grid stability but they are different things. Your linked article only addresses inertia.  You can get by with reduced inertia currently provided by thermal plants, but with a reduction of inertia other solutions need to be employed.  The solutions to achieve a stable grid with increased renewables penetration come with costs not given in basic solar and wind LCOE analysis.  Tally those costs up with the other pesky "firming costs" of storage and improved T&D and then give an LCOE comparison.  

[Dahobbs 18324]

25 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

You are just googling topics and posting links without understanding the content.  Inertia, real power, reactive power, and power factor are all relevant to grid stability but they are different things. Your linked article only addresses inertia.  You can get by with reduced inertia currently provided by thermal plants, but with a reduction of inertia other solutions need to be employed.  The solutions to achieve a stable grid with increased renewables penetration come with costs not given in basic solar and wind LCOE analysis.  Tally those costs up with the other pesky "firming costs" of storage and improved T&D and then give an LCOE comparison.  

I specifically addressed inertia because you brought it up. I never said other factors didn't matter.

Otherwise you continue to push an issue I haven't challenged. Renewables have advantages and disadvantages to overall grid stability. We will incur additional costs as we push renewables to a higher percentage of the grid. I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I specifically addressed inertia because you brought it up. 

Otherwise you continue to push an issue I haven't challenged. Renewables have advantages and disadvantages to overall grid stability. We will incur additional costs as we push renewables to a higher percentage of the grid. 

I brought up a number of things and you only responded to one, presumably because it popped up early in a google search.    

Renewables on their own provide less grid stability and more grid equipment to operate reliably compared to thermal plants.  This is well-known in the energy industry:
 

Spoiler

Most wind turbines use power electronic converter technology, which affects the safety and stability of the power grid differently compared with conventional synchronous generators. Furthermore, fluctuations in wind power cause fluctuations in the output of wind farms, making it difficult to create and implement suitable power generation plans for wind farms. The generation technology and grid connection scheme for wind power and conventional thermal power generation differ considerably. Moreover, the active and reactive power control abilities of wind turbines are weaker than those of thermal power units, necessitating additional equipment to control wind turbines.

Because of the weak reactive voltage control ability of wind power plants, additional reactive voltage control equipment must be installed in power grids... Existing reactive voltage control technologies mainly include series compensation, staric var compensator, static synchronous compensation, controllable high impedance, and other flexible AC transmission technologies; these technologies can be used in wind power transmission lines. In general, the power transmission lines of thermal power plants only use a fixed high reactance to offset the charging power of high-voltage lines.

...the grid connection of the thermal power plant involves considerably less additional control equipment than that of the wind power base does. The total installed capacity of the wind power base is larger; therefore, the conductor section of the wind power base transmission line is also larger than that of the thermal power plant.

The differences between the impacts of wind power and thermal power on the stability of a power system were analyzed through a simulation of the wind power base and the thermal power plant, which were considered to be under the same disturbance [30]. In the simulation, a fault disturbance was assumed to occur in the power grid to which the transmission system is connected. Two scenarios were analyzed: (a) full power generation from all wind power units (2500 MW), which replaces part of the thermal power unit (1000 MW), and (b) outage of all wind power units. The changes in system voltage and frequency were analyzed, and the variation curve of the system frequency and voltage was obtained (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 clearly shows that when the power grid is disturbed, replacing thermal power with wind power reduces the system stability, the system frequency oscillation in the grid becomes apparent, and voltage fluctuation intensifies.

Wind power generation is intermittent and involves fluctuations. Currently, it is impossible to control the output level and operation state of a wind farm according to the control requirements of a conventional power supply. As the grid connection capacity and voltage level of wind farms increase, power grids are being increasingly affected  by wind power in a wider range and to a greater extent. To alleviate these problems, this study focuses on two aspects: the grid connection scheme and its impact on systemstability. From the economic perspective, to receive wind power, except for the grid connection, investments toward matching transmission and transformation equipment to strengthen the grid structure are required. From the technical perspective, after large-scale wind farms are connected to a grid, the operation mode of the grid changes, and the reliability and stability of the power system are affected.  Therefore, for large-scale wind power generation, these two aspects must be considered separately to ensure stable operation and effective consumption of wind power.

Difference between grid connections of large-scale wind power and conventional synchronous generation

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Dahobbs 18324]

9 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I brought up a number of things and you only responded to one, presumably because it popped up early in a google search.    

Renewables on their own provide less grid stability and more grid equipment to operate reliably compared to thermal plants.  This is well-known in the energy industry:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

Most wind turbines use power electronic converter technology, which affects the safety and stability of the power grid differently compared with conventional synchronous generators. Furthermore, fluctuations in wind power cause fluctuations in the output of wind farms, making it difficult to create and implement suitable power generation plans for wind farms. The generation technology and grid connection scheme for wind power and conventional thermal power generation differ considerably. Moreover, the active and reactive power control abilities of wind turbines are weaker than those of thermal power units, necessitating additional equipment to control wind turbines.

Because of the weak reactive voltage control ability of wind power plants, additional reactive voltage control equipment must be installed in power grids... Existing reactive voltage control technologies mainly include series compensation, staric var compensator, static synchronous compensation, controllable high impedance, and other flexible AC transmission technologies; these technologies can be used in wind power transmission lines. In general, the power transmission lines of thermal power plants only use a fixed high reactance to offset the charging power of high-voltage lines.

...the grid connection of the thermal power plant involves considerably less additional control equipment than that of the wind power base does. The total installed capacity of the wind power base is larger; therefore, the conductor section of the wind power base transmission line is also larger than that of the thermal power plant.

The differences between the impacts of wind power and thermal power on the stability of a power system were analyzed through a simulation of the wind power base and the thermal power plant, which were considered to be under the same disturbance [30]. In the simulation, a fault disturbance was assumed to occur in the power grid to which the transmission system is connected. Two scenarios were analyzed: (a) full power generation from all wind power units (2500 MW), which replaces part of the thermal power unit (1000 MW), and (b) outage of all wind power units. The changes in system voltage and frequency were analyzed, and the variation curve of the system frequency and voltage was obtained (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 clearly shows that when the power grid is disturbed, replacing thermal power with wind power reduces the system stability, the system frequency oscillation in the grid becomes apparent, and voltage fluctuation intensifies.

Wind power generation is intermittent and involves fluctuations. Currently, it is impossible to control the output level and operation state of a wind farm according to the control requirements of a conventional power supply. As the grid connection capacity and voltage level of wind farms increase, power grids are being increasingly affected  by wind power in a wider range and to a greater extent. To alleviate these problems, this study focuses on two aspects: the grid connection scheme and its impact on systemstability. From the economic perspective, to receive wind power, except for the grid connection, investments toward matching transmission and transformation equipment to strengthen the grid structure are required. From the technical perspective, after large-scale wind farms are connected to a grid, the operation mode of the grid changes, and the reliability and stability of the power system are affected.  Therefore, for large-scale wind power generation, these two aspects must be considered separately to ensure stable operation and effective consumption of wind power.

Difference between grid connections of large-scale wind power and conventional synchronous generation

 

I have a fairly good understanding of this. I haven't disagreed renewables affect grid stability (particularly at more significant percentages of the grid). I haven't disagreed there are additional costs associated with an increasingly large percentage of the grid going to renewable. I continue to not understand why you insist on posting as if I do or why you insist on insults. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I have a fairly good understanding of this. I haven't disagreed renewables affect grid stability (particularly at more significant percentages of the grid). I haven't disagreed there are additional costs associated with an increasingly large percentage of the grid going to renewable. I continue to not understand why you insist on posting as if I do or why you insist on insults. 

I haven't used insults. I don't think that you understand these topics, but that is not an insult.  I stated why basic LCOE of renewables to dispatchable power is not an apples to apples comparison, and you responded with flat out ridiculous assertions such as "electricity is all the same."  

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 minute ago, axiom of foundation said:

I haven't used insults. I don't think that you understand these topics, but that is not an insult.  I stated why basic LCOE of renewables to dispatchable power is not an apples to apples comparison, and you responded with flat out ridiculous assertions such as "electricity is all the same."  

And I don't think you do. I also don't believe you understand English all that well. I said it is reasonable to compare LCOE. I also said you have consider it within a larger context. As a fungible commodity, electricity is all the same. That's in fact how grids operate. ERCOT prices don't vary based on the type of generator. That doesn't mean the generators are all the same, and I never asserted otherwise. 

[Bullneck 19528]

3 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

No, it is not.  One is an on-demand energy source and the other is not.  Even if you ignore this and confine it to a kwh to kwh basis as you want to do, wind and solar do not provide the same stability and inertia to the grid that a thermal plant does. Wind and solar do not provide reactive power the way thermal plants do.  So even when comparing a given amount of real power output for a solar or wind source in isolation to a thermal plant, the output is not the same:    

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/baseload/grid-inertia-why-it-matters-in-a-renewable-world/#gref

 

OK, so built a ton more solar panel facilities than "needed" and connect to the rest of the US grid.  You're welcome.

Follow me more energy reliability tips.

[Biff Tannen 46168]

Axiom is a fucking beating

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And I don't think you do. I also don't believe you understand English all that well. I said it is reasonable to compare LCOE. I also said you have consider it within a larger context. As a fungible commodity, electricity is all the same. That's in fact how grids operate. ERCOT prices don't vary based on the type of generator. That doesn't mean the generators are all the same, and I never asserted otherwise. 

Electric energy is bought and sold as a commodity in given energy units. That doesn't mean "electricity is all the same."  That is my point.  Just because two power sources produce the same amount of electric energy does not mean they are producing the same thing.  The way a given market buys and sells electric energy doesn't change basic physics. 

You may think this is all pedantic distraction from the core topic but it is not.  Renewable plants do not necessarily produce the same electrical characteristics as thermal plants even if they produce the same amount of electric energy.  Hence the consideration of reactive power markets and their additional associated costs that were previously not needed with grids dominated by thermal plants.  Just because our current electric energy market charges only for electric energy units and doesn't currently charge for reactive power balancing doesn't mean other electrical characteristics and their associated costs can be ignored in energy source comparisons.  

 

13 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

OK, so built a ton more solar panel facilities than "needed" and connect to the rest of the US grid.  You're welcome.

Follow me more energy reliability tips.

Let's push the duck curve to maximum theoretical value. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Dahobbs 18324]

2 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Just because our current electric energy market charges only for electric energy units and doesn't currently charge for reactive power balancing doesn't mean other electrical characteristics and their associated costs can be ignored in energy source comparisons.  

1) Our current energy market does in fact often include pricing for those services. They are just dealt with separately from real power. 

2) I never said those characteristic or associated costs should be ignored. In fact, I've actually discussed them in this thread prior to your random fucking head butting on an issue that we don't even disagree on. 

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Axiom is a fucking beating

I'm an advocate for sustainable energy systems.  Conversion to sustainable energy systems come with massive capital costs that are seldom accurately reported for various reasons.  In my opinion this hurts the cause.  It would be better if the general public understood the challenges and costs of these systems.  In my view it is better to accurately report the facts and get public support for the overall goals taking into consideration emissions and sustainability.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to pay more for cleaner energy. 

 

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) Our current energy market does in fact often include pricing for those services. They are just dealt with separately from real power. 

2) I never said those characteristic or associated costs should be ignored. In fact, I've actually discussed them in this thread prior to your random fucking head butting on an issue that we don't even disagree on. 

 

Do you agree that a LCOE comparison of renewable power to thermal plants should take into consideration these costs?  

[Dahobbs 18324]

26 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Do you agree that a LCOE comparison of renewable power to thermal plants should take into consideration these costs?  

No, largely because I don't think that is possible for the purpose LCOE serves. Those costs vary depending on how much of the grid is powered by renewable energy. And many of those costs are capital costs for the system rather than reoccurring costs. Accounting for them in grid design is important, but not appropriate for inclusion in LCOE (and again, it would be a moving target based on overall grid characteristics). Further, when we are talking about ancillary services that generators can provide, those are going to vary depending on the specific plant design and are not necessarily dictated by fuel source. 

Again, as I've said before, LCOE isn't a be all metric. It is one metric that must be considered in a larger context. But that doesn't mean it isn't useful. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Bullneck 19528]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Electric energy is bought and sold as a commodity in given energy units. That doesn't mean "electricity is all the same."  That is my point.  Just because two power sources produce the same amount of electric energy does not mean they are producing the same thing.  The way a given market buys and sells electric energy doesn't change basic physics. 

You may think this is all pedantic distraction from the core topic but it is not.  Renewable plants do not necessarily produce the same electrical characteristics as thermal plants even if they produce the same amount of electric energy.  Hence the consideration of reactive power markets and their additional associated costs that were previously not needed with grids dominated by thermal plants.  Just because our current electric energy market charges only for electric energy units and doesn't currently charge for reactive power balancing doesn't mean other electrical characteristics and their associated costs can be ignored in energy source comparisons.  

 

Let's push the duck curve to maximum theoretical value. 

What's your point? 

Problems don't get solved by people who don't want to solve them.

Just do what your graphic says.  Get better batteries.  Save the gas for night time.  The problem is solved.

Follow me for more renewable energy production tips!

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bullneck

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, largely because I don't think that is possible for the purpose LCOE serves. Those costs vary depending on how much of the grid is powered by renewable energy. And many of those costs are capital costs for the system rather than reoccurring costs. Accounting for them in grid design is important, but not appropriate for inclusion in LCOE (and again, it would be a moving target based on overall grid characteristics). Further, when we are talking about ancillary services that generators can provide, those are going to vary depending on the specific plant design and are not necessarily dictated by fuel source. 

Simply acknowledging that other costs exist is not particularly useful unless you quantity them and add them in.  

In any case, we seem to agree on the end goals and probably agree on many of the ways to achieve the goal.  We seem to diverge of the level of optimism around renewables and their ideal percentage of our total electric energy production.  I would like a more balanced sustainable energy source grid.  Also, my guess is that I think the energy transition will cost much more than you do.      

 

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

What's your point? 

Just do what your graphic says.  Get better batteries.  Save the gas for night time.  The problem is solved.

Follow me for more renewable energy production tips!

That is my point.  But since batteries/energy storage systems are not free, you have to factor in the costs.  What we are debating is energy costs and so adding in all the costs is important.    

[Dahobbs 18324]

5 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

Simply acknowledging that other costs exist is not particularly useful unless you quantity them and add them in.  

I never said don't quantity them. I'm just saying you can quantity them separate from LCOE. 

I mean, fuck man, I literally posted a chart on firming costs (which actually addresses the vast majority of costs that you're talking about) that fucking quantifies them. 

As to whether we agree on total expense, you've never actually asked that question and none of my posts have directly addressed it. I have however referenced a number of studies on the issue. And that answer is that total cost will depend upon what percentage of the grid is renewable. I've said many times that the studies show that last 10-20% is very expensive. And I'm on record in this thread saying we actually should not completely convert the grid, and that natural gas should remain a significant portion of the grid (10-20%), at least for the next 50 years.

Finally, focusing on the costs of converting to a more renewable grid is also misleading. There are benefits, and ideally you'd account for those too. A modernized renewable grid is going to be more reliable and resilient than our current grid. While initial modernization costs may be high, one downstream benefit is cheaper energy moving forward. And, of course there is the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions. But, just like not all costs belong in LCOE, neither do all benefits. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I never said don't quantity them. I'm just saying you can quantity them separate from LCOE. 

I mean, fuck man, I literally posted a chart on firming costs (which actually addresses the vast majority of costs that you're talking about) that fucking quantifies them. 

As to whether we agree on total expense, you've never actually asked that question and none of my posts have directly addressed it. I have however referenced a number of studies on the issue. And that answer is that total cost will depend upon what percentage of the grid is renewable. I've said many times that the studies show that last 10-20% is very expensive. And I'm on record in this thread saying we actually should not completely convert the grid, and that natural gas should remain a significant portion of the grid (10-20%), at least for the next 50 years.

Finally, focusing on the costs of converting to a more renewable grid is also misleading. There are benefits, and ideally you'd account for those too. A modernized renewable grid is going to be more reliable and resilient than our current grid. While initial modernization costs may be high, one downstream benefit is cheaper energy moving forward. And, of course there is the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions. But, just like not all costs belong in LCOE, neither do all benefits. 

My initial post simply said that dispatchable and resource constrained energy sources do different things and LCOE is not useful comparison between the two.  You acknowledge that there are additional costs to make renewables provide everything that thermal plants do, but that we should put those costs into a separate bucket and not into LCOE.  If we can compare the costs of two types of products but pull out some of the costs of one product and don’t use them in the comparison metric, then this will obviously make one product type appear better.  
 

Getting the grid to 90% renewables will be massively expensive compared to a natural gas based grid.  Accommodating the “same” yet different electric output will require significant capital.  The “advantages and disadvantages” on grid stability of renewables that result in net disadvantage will come with challenges and costs. 

[Captainant 28539]

9 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Getting the grid to 90% renewables will be massively expensive compared to a natural gas based grid.

In a world where burning fossil fuels and their negative externalities arent accounted for, this is true. In a world with a carbon tax, and other measures that I'm sure will be coming in response to to environmental havoc we are currently enjoying, the economics will absolutely change. 

Besides, part of what kicked off all this discussion is that the state is actively taking steps to artificially economically impair the battery energy storage model. The fossil fuel economic profit model relies on socializing the cost of using their product, and historically the O&G industry has opposed renewables since it directly threatens their business model 

[Dahobbs 18324]

6 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

My initial post simply said that dispatchable and resource constrained energy sources do different things and LCOE is not useful comparison between the two.  You acknowledge that there are additional costs to make renewables provide everything that thermal plants do, but that we should put those costs into a separate bucket and not into LCOE.  If we can compare the costs of two types of products but pull out some of the costs of one product and don’t use them in the comparison metric, then this will obviously make one product type appear better.  
 

Getting the grid to 90% renewables will be massively expensive compared to a natural gas based grid.  Accommodating the “same” yet different electric output will require significant capital.  The “advantages and disadvantages” on grid stability of renewables that result in net disadvantage will come with challenges and costs. 

We break out different costs when doing accounting because not all costs should be treated the same. And sometimes we want to compare one set of costs without including another set. That doesn't mean one analysis is more or less useful than the other. They are just different. 

By your reasoning, we should reduce everything to a single number. All costs and benefits should be calculated and included to arrive at a net change figure. No other analysis or comparison should be done. In this case, that would mean including in the cost of thermal generation damage done due to CO2 emissions. We should probably also include all legacy costs associated with power grid reliant on thermal energy, many of which wouldn't have been incurred had we built a renewable based grid from scratch. The resulting number would not be a net negative for renewables. While I think that would be a worthwhile comparison (and one that has been done to large extent),  it shouldn't be the only comparison or consideration.

P.S. My comment on electricity being the same was not meant to say that all generators have the same electrical characteristics (indeed generators of the same type can vary greatly depending on specific design, and renewable power plants can be designed to provide voltage regulation services, including management of reactive power). I was just countering your analogy to shelter. Electricity (real and imaginary) is a fungible commodity. Shelter isn't. Stop being so obtuse. . 

[Guest]

Lolz.

If we can artificially fuck the natural gas guys/ distort the economics, our way works.

Edited September 2, 2023 by slorch

[Brisketexan 106899]

And…our power just went out. Near Anderson High. It blinked off at 7:10. Then just completely out a few mins ago. Sweet.

[YGIFS 19458]

So you should have that manly aroma right around kickoff time?  Sweet.  I was see if you wanted to meet up before the game, but I think I'm good...

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Captainant said:

In a world where burning fossil fuels and their negative externalities arent accounted for, this is true. In a world with a carbon tax, and other measures that I'm sure will be coming in response to to environmental havoc we are currently enjoying, the economics will absolutely change. 

Besides, part of what kicked off all this discussion is that the state is actively taking steps to artificially economically impair the battery energy storage model. The fossil fuel economic profit model relies on socializing the cost of using their product, and historically the O&G industry has opposed renewables since it directly threatens their business model 

Agreed on the bold.

After the passage of the IRA, the USA is now the most favorable place in the world for green/clean energy investment.  Capital and talent from around the world are flowing to the US right now, in particular to Texas and Louisiana.  

A year on, the IRA has made America the green envy of the world...every single investor surveyed perceived the US as a more attractive place for renewable energy investment than other leading countries over the next three years.

Recharge News

Texas produces more gigawatt-hours of electricity from renewable sources than any other state.  If Texas were a country, it would rank fifth in the world in installed wind capacity.  Acting as if either the US or Texas is somehow behind the game is not based in reality.  The US is a world leader in the energy transition and much of that is happening within the energy industry based in Texas.

 

 

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

We break out different costs when doing accounting because not all costs should be treated the same. And sometimes we want to compare one set of costs without including another set. That doesn't mean one analysis is more or less useful than the other. They are just different. 

By your reasoning, we should reduce everything to a single number. All costs and benefits should be calculated and included to arrive at a net change figure. No other analysis or comparison should be done. In this case, that would mean including in the cost of thermal generation damage done due to CO2 emissions. We should probably also include all legacy costs associated with power grid reliant on thermal energy, many of which wouldn't have been incurred had we built a renewable based grid from scratch. The resulting number would not be a net negative for renewables. While I think that would be a worthwhile comparison (and one that has been done to large extent),  it shouldn't be the only comparison or consideration.

P.S. My comment on electricity being the same was not meant to say that all generators have the same electrical characteristics (indeed generators of the same type can vary greatly depending on specific design, and renewable power plants can be designed to provide voltage regulation services, including management of reactive power). I was just countering your analogy to shelter. Electricity (real and imaginary) is a fungible commodity. Shelter isn't. Stop being so obtuse. . 

Again, I don't think that we disagree much on end goals in the final summation.  My point was simply one on accounting and how easy it is to make comparisons appear however one likes by ignoring comprehensive product outputs and moving around scope & costs into various buckets. 

The reason why we don't just go to 80-90% renewables is mostly due to capital and technical challenges.  Take Germany for example.  They are strongly in favor of green energy and have invested heavily in renewable power and storage, and they are still under 50% renewables for electric energy production:

 

If you look at their total energy consumption, renewables is not even at 20%:

 

They are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.  Even for countries with massive public & political support for green energy, conversion to renewables is not an easy path.  Their energy prices are also very unstable.  This is a lot to be paying for energy in 2022 considering all the low LCOE renewable energy they produce:

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Brisketexan 106899]

So you should have that manly aroma right around kickoff time?  Sweet.  I was see if you wanted to meet up before the game, but I think I'm good...

I’m stupid enough to actually be GOING to the game. So, after, my 90 degree house will still be a cool-off.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

46 minutes ago, slorch said:

Lolz.

If we can artificially fuck the natural gas guys/ distort the economics, our way works.

Making private businesses pay for their own COGS = distortion. Got it. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Dahobbs 18324]

11 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

The reason why we don't just go to 80-90% renewables is mostly due to capital and technical challenges.  

I agree. Studies for the US show that the roughly 50% is line where costs start increasing disproportionately unless you rely extensively on non intermittent renewables like hydro (several countries are above 80% due to readily available hydro power). 

Germany was above 50% renewable for electricity for a brief period, but then it started shutting down its existing nuclear power plants without sufficient replacement. Another thing increasing cost is its insistence on choosing higher cost options like burying long distances transmission lines. Germany bureaucracy also created a lot of additional friction costs. 

As for non-electrical energy consumption in Germany, that is going to take longer to decarbonize as something north of 90% of residential heating is gas, including fairly large networks of centralized gas heating. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

20 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Again, I don't think that we disagree much on end goals in the final summation.  My point was simply one on accounting and how easy it is to make comparisons appear however one likes by ignoring comprehensive product outputs and moving around scope & costs into various buckets. 

The reason why we don't just go to 80-90% renewables is mostly due to capital and technical challenges.  Take Germany for example.  They are strongly in favor of green energy and have invested heavily in renewable power and storage, and they are still under 50% renewables for electric energy production:

You can't talk about German energy prices in 2021-2023 without deeply involving both denuclearization and the effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

[Nathan Jessep 147]

21 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

My point was simply one on accounting and how easy it is to make comparisons appear however one likes by ignoring comprehensive product outputs and moving around scope & costs into various buckets. 

It sounds like the “Levelized” in LCOE is a bit of a misnomer. If I had to guess, intentionally so.

25 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Agreed on the bold.

After the passage of the IRA, the USA is now the most favorable place in the world for green/clean energy investment.  Capital and talent from around the world are flowing to the US right now, in particular to Texas and Louisiana.  

A year on, the IRA has made America the green envy of the world...every single investor surveyed perceived the US as a more attractive place for renewable energy investment than other leading countries over the next three years.

Recharge News

Texas produces more gigawatt-hours of electricity from renewable sources than any other state.  If Texas were a country, it would rank fifth in the world in installed wind capacity.  Acting as if either the US or Texas is somehow behind the game is not based in reality.  The US is a world leader in the energy transition and much of that is happening within the energy industry based in Texas.

 

 

Again, I don't think that we disagree much on end goals in the final summation.  My point was simply one on accounting and how easy it is to make comparisons appear however one likes by ignoring comprehensive product outputs and moving around scope & costs into various buckets. 

The reason why we don't just go to 80-90% renewables is mostly due to capital and technical challenges.  Take Germany for example.  They are strongly in favor of green energy and have invested heavily in renewable power and storage, and they are still under 50% renewables for electric energy production:

 

If you look at their total energy consumption, renewables is not even at 20%:

 

They are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.  Even for countries with massive public & political support for green energy, conversion to renewables is not an easy path.  Their energy prices are also very unstable.  This is a lot to be paying for energy in 2022 considering all the low LCOE renewable energy they produce:

 

something that the experts need to explain to everyone is why the places that have pushed more renewables have typically had higher prices and less reliability in spite of these studies cited? Also how is investing hundreds of billions (trillions?) more going to actually reverse that and reap benefits?

 

[Dahobbs 18324]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You can't talk about German energy prices in 2021-2023 without deeply involving both denuclearization and the effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

And don't forget about COVID and the issues that created. Germany got north of 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources in 2019 when prices were still low. It is silly to act like renewables were the cause of the price spike. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Making private businesses pay for their own COGS = distortion. Got it. 

This is a good point.  Add in all costs and product outputs & benefits and do like for like comparison.  

 

20 minutes ago, Nathan Jessep said:

It sounds like the “Levelized” in LCOE is a bit of a misnomer. If I had to guess, intentionally so.

something that the experts need to explain to everyone is why the places that have pushed more renewables have typically had higher prices and less reliability in spite of these studies cited? Also how is investing hundreds of billions (trillions?) more going to actually reverse that and reap benefits?

Clean energy will absolutely come with additional costs.  This is why billions in subsidies are being allocated to help cover these costs.  If it really was cheaper in comprehensive analysis, than why the need for subsidies?  Energy companies want to make money.  They do not give a shit where that energy comes from.  

 

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And don't forget about COVID and the issues that created. Germany got north of 50% of it's electricity from renewable sources in 2019 when prices were still low. It is silly to act like renewables were the cause of the price spike. 

 

28 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You can't talk about German energy prices in 2021-2023 without deeply involving both denuclearization and the effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Of course.  This is what poor energy policy, idealism over pragmatism, and insufficient energy diversity gets you.  Good thing US gulf coast LNG was there to save them.  Unfortunately, they also had to burn more brown coal as well, pretty much the dirtiest energy source there is.

[Schulz2.0 29280]

48 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You can't talk about German energy prices in 2021-2023 without deeply involving both denuclearization and the effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

But Germany's geography and climate mean their wind and solar aren't very efficient at all. It's not actually all that green. Their aversion to nuclear is insanely idiotic.

[Bozo_Casanova 26851]

14 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

But Germany's geography and climate mean their wind and solar aren't very efficient at all. It's not actually all that green. Their aversion to nuclear is insanely idiotic.

Makes sense if you are Gerhard Schröder and plan to lobby for Russian gas when you leave office.

[Dahobbs 18324]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Making private businesses pay for their own COGS = distortion. Got it. 

 

34 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

This is a good point.  Add in all costs and product outputs & benefits and do like for like comparison.  

If you go back to the Lazard analysis I cited, you'll find a chart that adds in carbon pricing. You can compare that with the pricing that includes firming costs for intermittents and get an example of what you're looking for.  This generally wouldn't include needed investment in improved transmission, but as that is needed regardless (having been deferred for far too long), it wouldn't make sense to add 100% of it to any particular energy source. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

If you go back to the Lazard analysis I cited, you'll find a chart that adds in carbon pricing. You can compare that with the pricing that includes firming costs for intermittents and get an example of what you're looking for.  This generally wouldn't include needed investment in improved transmission, but as that is needed regardless (having been deferred for far too long), it wouldn't make sense to add 100% of it to any particular energy source. 

I know you linked and reference the Lazard report, but frankly it is a simple a free public report with metrics that are frequently misused and abused.  Even Lazard admits this:

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/lcoe-lazard-misleading-nuclear

 

[Dahobbs 18324]

23 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I know you linked and reference the Lazard report, but frankly it is a simple a free public report with metrics that are frequently misused and abused.  Even Lazard admits this:

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/lcoe-lazard-misleading-nuclear

 

Weird...

Quote

Lazard’s own latest analysis stresses a new way to look at prices, including the cost of “firming” the intermittent sources, by having enough dispatchable capacity on hand to assure adequate supply. 

It is almost like I was pointing you to this comparison. And it is almost like you continue to talk down to me as if I'm not directly addressing the exact same shit you're complaining about. 

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Weird...

It is almost like I was pointing you to this comparison. And it is almost like you continue to talk down to me as if I'm not directly addressing the exact same shit you're complaining about. 

 

Here was my original point:

“It makes no sense to compare the LCOE of dispatchable energy generation vs resource constrained renewable energy generation.  LCOE is simply the sum of the lifetime costs of an asset divided by the total energy produced over it's lifetime, factoring in the discount rate.  It doesn't factor in the value of energy produced at a given time (cost and value are different things), availability factor, reactive power generation, or any other important criteria other than total energy produced.”

You responded with: “Of course it makes sense to compare them.”

Here is what the linked article states:

LCOE has been useful for a long time, but it was never intended to deal with intermittent energy sources. 

When the company [Lazard] issued its most recent annual analysis of LCOE, it stated firmly that this analytical tool has been widely misused to compare apples and oranges.

The problem is that the underlying assumption of the LCOE calculus—so obvious that it was seldom stated—was that any given power plant would run when needed, and not run when not needed, and thus that the production would have value. In the days before solar and wind, that assumption was correct. A utility could calculate how many hours a year it was likely to need a gas peaking plant, or a baseload coal plant. But the technique doesn’t take account of the fact that a kilowatt-hour varies in value according to market conditions, a problem for generators that can’t choose when they run, like wind and solar, which run when mother nature says it is time. Wind, and especially solar, have fratricidal tendencies; that is, when they are at maximum production, they tend to flood the market and push down prices. During the best production times, they are bleeding each other, economically.

From EPRI: “Levelized-cost metrics are incomplete for evaluating the relative competitiveness of system resources. Comparing traditional levelized-cost metrics between different resources with dissimilar characteristics (e.g., contrasting the levelized cost of electricity for solar and nuclear power) ignores differences in the value of the resources to the system.”

Just because you link to a simplified public reports and repeat certain terms such as firming costs doesn’t mean you know what these things mean or how to apply them. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

27 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Here was my original point:

“It makes no sense to compare the LCOE of dispatchable energy generation vs resource constrained renewable energy generation.  LCOE is simply the sum of the lifetime costs of an asset divided by the total energy produced over it's lifetime, factoring in the discount rate.  It doesn't factor in the value of energy produced at a given time (cost and value are different things), availability factor, reactive power generation, or any other important criteria other than total energy produced.”

You responded with: “Of course it makes sense to compare them.”

Here is what the linked article states:

LCOE has been useful for a long time, but it was never intended to deal with intermittent energy sources. 

When the company [Lazard] issued its most recent annual analysis of LCOE, it stated firmly that this analytical tool has been widely misused to compare apples and oranges.

The problem is that the underlying assumption of the LCOE calculus—so obvious that it was seldom stated—was that any given power plant would run when needed, and not run when not needed, and thus that the production would have value. In the days before solar and wind, that assumption was correct. A utility could calculate how many hours a year it was likely to need a gas peaking plant, or a baseload coal plant. But the technique doesn’t take account of the fact that a kilowatt-hour varies in value according to market conditions, a problem for generators that can’t choose when they run, like wind and solar, which run when mother nature says it is time. Wind, and especially solar, have fratricidal tendencies; that is, when they are at maximum production, they tend to flood the market and push down prices. During the best production times, they are bleeding each other, economically.

From EPRI: “Levelized-cost metrics are incomplete for evaluating the relative competitiveness of system resources. Comparing traditional levelized-cost metrics between different resources with dissimilar characteristics (e.g., contrasting the levelized cost of electricity for solar and nuclear power) ignores differences in the value of the resources to the system.”

Just because you link to a simplified public reports and repeat certain terms such as firming costs doesn’t mean you know what these things mean or how to apply them. 

What the fuck is wrong with you? Feel free to cite any fucking study or analysis that quantifies those costs. I'm the only one to do so in this thread. Go fuck yourself you child. 

I've fucking addressed these issues before you even came in the fucking thread. Clearly I understand what you're talking about you fucking prick.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I guess it’s that I don’t rely almost exclusively on rearranged terms found in free public reports without any direct experience on the topic. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

Just now, axiom of foundation said:

I guess it’s that I don’t rely almost exclusively on rearranged terms found in free public reports without any direct experience on the topic. 

You're right. You rely on random blog posts that say the exact same thing I've been saying. I'm actually providing sources, government and private, that have actual analysis that attempts to quantify the costs involved. 

Me: lcoe is worth looking at, but there are other factors to consider. 

You: you can't look at LCOE alone, you don't understand that there are other factors to consider. 

Me: ???????? Here is some modeling that attempts to account for those factors.

You: You don't understand, there are other costs. 

Me: ????? That's what I just gave you. 

You: just because you can respond with directly relevant information, doesn't mean you understand it. 

Me: ???????

What am I missing, Mr. Trump? Please tell me how you know things, bigly things, better than anyone else. How can I demonstrate to you that I understand the concepts you're talking about?

Look, in no way have I asserted Lazard is the be all or end all. It is just one analysis that attempted to quantify what you wanted quantified and is readily available. if you have an issue with how Lazard figured firming costs, or if you think firming costs aren't sufficient in some way, why don't you actually attempt to identify the deficiency rather than just asserting that understand something I do not. Provide an alternate figure. Provide something tangible. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're right. You rely on random blog posts that say the exact same thing I've been saying. I'm actually providing sources, government and private, that have actual analysis that attempts to quantify the costs involved. 

Me: lcoe is worth looking at, but there are other factors to consider. 

You: you can't look at LCOE alone, you don't understand that there are other factors to consider. 

Me: ???????? Here is some modeling that attempts to account for those factors.

You: You don't understand, there are other costs. 

Me: ????? That's what I just gave you. 

You: just because you can respond with directly relevant information, doesn't mean you understand it. 

Me: ???????

What am I missing, Mr. Trump? Please tell me how you know things, bigly things, better than anyone else. How can I demonstrate to you that I understand the concepts you're talking about?

Look, in no way have I asserted Lazard is the be all or end all. It is just one analysis that attempted to quantify what you wanted quantified and is readily available. if you have an issue with how Lazard figured firming costs, or if you think firming costs aren't sufficient in some way, why don't you actually attempt to identify the deficiency rather than just asserting that understand something I do not. Provide an alternate figure. Provide something tangible. 

I say LCOE is not useful comparison for renewables vs thermal plants, you disagree and say of course it makes sense to compare LCOE.  I point out why it doesn’t work and cite experts who state conceptually the exact same thing I posted, but you don’t take back your original statement and just say put the costs elsewhere.  You say electricity is all the same, I tell you why it isn’t and you say well of course it isn’t.  I say renewable energy sources provide less stability to the grid, you say they have  “advantages and disadvantages” and so I link an article which outlines the very common knowledge within the industry that on balance they provide less stability.  You say well that can be fixed.  You say I give insults when I don’t and you in fact give insults.  The whole exchange is you challenging me and then falling back when your claims are demonstrated to be false but somehow you still stick by them with various gymnastics.  
 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

3 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

But Germany's geography and climate mean their wind and solar aren't very efficient at all. It's not actually all that green. Their aversion to nuclear is insanely idiotic.

A real dedication to green energy would have been sticking with nuclear and making investments in solar/wind in other locations around the world. The latter part doesn’t provide electricity for Germans but they can feel good helping the environment. 

[Dahobbs 18324]

31 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I say LCOE is not useful comparison for renewables vs thermal plants, you disagree and say of course it makes sense to compare LCOE.  

Why do you continue to misrepresent my initial post. Here is what I said:

Quote

Of course it makes sense to compare them. That doesn't mean it is the whole picture, but it is important information.

I've never said don't consider anything else. I expressly say it isn't the full picture.  We may disagree whether an LCOE provides any useful information, but that hardly seems like a reason for you to be such an ass. 

Quote

You say electricity is all the same, I tell you why it isn’t and you say well of course it isnt.

Again, ignoring context. I was responding to your analogy comparing a fungible good with a non-fungible good. That's all. I wasn't attempting to quantify all aspects of a specific generator. 

You'll clearly lie about anything. I've attempted to engage in normal conversation with you and your only response is to talk down to me. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, I don't know. I do know it is football time. Peace sucka. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

We may disagree whether an LCOE provides any useful information, but that hardly seems like a reason for you to be such an ass.  

I've attempted to engage in normal conversation with you and your only response is to talk down to me. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, I don't know. I

Ok, I’m the one expressing needless hostility.  

[HornOnTheBayou 9062]

40 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Ok, I’m the one expressing needless hostility.  

[Hawndoh 2409]

Well this thread has become insufferable.

[atomheartbevo 90650]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I’m stupid enough to actually be GOING to the game. So, after, my 90 degree house will still be a cool-off.

I sat in a restaurant for a few hours watching the game, but I was near a door that would let in hot air from the outside, so you have my sympathy?

[Biff Tannen 46168]

51 minutes ago, Hawndoh said:

Well this thread has become insufferable.

Yeah, because of Axiom.  As usual.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah, because of Axiom.  As usual.

I don’t remember having any unpleasant exchanges with you, nor know why you would care about my posts one way or another.  

[YGIFS 19458]

This is Surly, dude.  All exchanges are unpleasant.  Energy portfolios are complex and can oscillate between reliability and unreliability.  In the end, we all get it.  Even those of us who only peripherally work in the energy space like myself.  

Where true frustration and impatience with apologists comes to bear is every single day, multiple threads shine a light on capitalism.  This company sucks because of this, that company must pay because of that, customers will abandon that product, clients will turn their nose at those services, etc.  And then we turn to railing, and rightfully so, on government ineptitude.  Health care this, highways that, homeless here, foreign aid there, more drilling, less intrusion, get out of the classroom and the refinery, get into the farms and the coal.  

We are monitors of equities, businesses, products, brands, and goods.  And we are critics of government involvement both large and small.  As is our right and expertise.  But when it comes to ERCOT, for some bizarre fucking reason---all bets are off.  The energy feed is driven by capitalism.  The regulations and delivery are government through and through.  All the things we are armchair experts on and god-adorned to vilify and analyze.  But for some strange rationale...it's beyond reproach for millionf of you

[Boss Hogg 808]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

A real dedication to green energy would have been sticking with nuclear and making investments in solar/wind in other locations around the world. The latter part doesn’t provide electricity for Germans but they can feel good helping the environment. 

The Green Party has been against nuclear for years. 
 

I’m just tiptoeing into this thread but it seems like the disagreement between these two posters is messaging.  They want the same thing. One wants to tell it like it is, full story. The other leads with a manufactured metric that excludes a bunch of stuff. Then when called out on it, says oh I count it over here see.
 

It is kind of like adjusted earnings vs GAAP EPS. 
 

I think when you’re trying to sway public policy and you lead with misleading metrics, then people’s eyebrows are raised. And rightfully so if we’re being honest given the last several years of public policy. 
 

As Charlie Munger would say, show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcomes. I’m shocked that a Wall St firm ideally positioned to benefit from tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies supports the massive rollout of this stuff and supports it via a massaged metric that conveniently excludes a lot of the costs. 
 

I support the honest messaging. It shouldn’t require some funny stuff that excludes all the real costs if it’s really worthwhile. 

[troph 25227]

It’s undeniable that we have to use nuclear to get off carbon based fuels. We need nuclear on every continent, every country, every electricity provider.  If we had the political will we could within 10-15 years eliminate carbon based electricity production completely. Then eliminate the ICE and we are on our way to saving the planet. Sure it produces other risks and investing at a massive clip in solar and wind is hugely important. Investing in other green technologies too. It would be great to eliminate nuclear for future generations but we need to save the planet first. Then improve safety for energy production second.  

Edited September 3, 2023 by troph