ERCOT Urging For Energy Conservation

[Brisketexan 104803]

32 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Agreed on the "every little bit" approach.  The world needs abundant low cost clean energy.  I believe this is the single greatest challenge to civilization and will be the pinnacle achievement of the 21st century.   It will take decades to implement and will require numerous technologies, methods, and approaches.  Hydro and geothermal where it can be utilized, solar and wind elsewhere with short duration peak storage and later addition of long duration storage.   Natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration for base load power in regions with limited hydro and geothermal and abundance of natural gas (e.g. Texas) as a transition fuel.  Maybe walk-away safe small modular nuclear reactors in a decade or two when that technology gets proven at scale.   Hydrogen/ammonia for the hard to abate heavy industry and as an energy carrier and seasonal storage medium.  And hopefully many other technologies that people aren't even planning on at present.   

It will happen one project at a time, MW by MW.  Some technologies won't pan out and will fall by the wayside.  Others will thrive and gain market share.  We have to learn from what works and what doesn't, make adjustments, and keep moving ahead.         

Couldn't agree more.  This is a big, complex problem.  There is no one, magic bullet solution.  Generation mix, adequate transmission/connection to get the power to where it's needed, storage -- ALL figure into the game.

[HornOnTheBayou 8882]

10 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

The pro fossil fuel “It’s too hard” people would have spent all of 1944 and 1945 planning in London instead of trying to get off the god damn beach.

 

Because most of them would have been Nazi collaborators. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

Comanche Peak looks like it may be taken out of the grid in the very near future.  The plant itself I don't think is in any danger but the transmission lines there might get caught up in that Chalk Mountain fire.  That's not going to do any favors to an already tight grid.

[4th_and_18 687]

Comanche Peak looks like it may be taken out of the grid in the very near future.  The plant itself I don't think is in any danger but the transmission lines there might get caught up in that Chalk Mountain fire.  That's not going to do any favors to an already tight grid.

There has been a new widened fire break put in place on the north and east side of the fire as well as “many” rounds of the orange fire retardant from plane drops. They are throwing all resources into keeping it from spreading that direction.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

19 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Because most of them would have been Nazi collaborators. 

[Guest]

On 7/18/2022 at 2:28 PM, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

I think that the "defend FF generation no matter what!" crowd is overreading what most folks are suggesting.  We know that FF generation will be a material part of the generation mix for at least the next 20-25 years.  It's important, we shouldn't get rid of it, and in fact, we may need to add some to keep up with growing demand.  The fuel mix should move to as close to 100% NG as possible (no more coal) for environmental reasons.

If we could get the global energy mix to 2/3 renewables, 1/3 NG, it would be a huge environmental improvement.  And we can do that here, in the very near future, so we should.  Added bonus: fix the grid and market structure, and we can have better reliability, too.

Why are you (and others) so hellbent on a fantasy renewables percentage?  I’m not really interested in what other countries do, where they either lack access to gas, or have to pay $30/mmbtu to get it. Do you people spouting fairy tale platitudes, patting yourselves on the backs, have any idea how much gas we have in this country?  

If y’all wanna have a serious discussion, let’s do that. You’re not right now. 

[Brisketexan 104803]

Why are you (and others) so hellbent on a fantasy renewables percentage?  I’m not really interested in what other countries do, where they either lack access to gas, or have to pay $30/mmbtu to get it. Do you people spouting fairy tale platitudes, patting yourselves on the backs, have any idea how much gas we have in this country?  
If y’all wanna have a serious discussion, let’s do that. You’re not right now. 

Because burning less fossil fuel - globally - would be a good move for our climate? Near-term cost per btu is not the only calculus here. It’s part of it - unaffordable energy isn’t helpful - which is why a mix is the right approach.

I honestly don’t even get your unhinged post.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because burning less fossil fuel - globally - would be a good move for our climate? Near-term cost per btu is not the only calculus here. It’s part of it - unaffordable energy isn’t helpful - which is why a mix is the right approach.

I honestly don’t even get your unhinged post.

Burning gas is clean, certainly relative to coal, and I said nothing about global. I never said a mix wasn’t necessary. I’m not unhinged.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, though that won’t stop you from diarrhea’ing posts that sound reasonable to get rep from others that don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a confederacy of dunces. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

4 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Burning gas is clean, certainly relative to coal, and I said nothing about global. I never said a mix wasn’t necessary. I’m not unhinged.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, though that won’t stop you from diarrhea’ing posts that sound reasonable to get rep from others that don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a confederacy of dunces. 

But Sweden!

[Anastasis 23409]

5 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

You have no idea what you’re talking about, though that won’t stop you from diarrhea’ing posts that sound reasonable

Don't go all Dick the Butcher on us. 

[Scheiss Meister 8406]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because burning less fossil fuel - globally - would be a good move for our climate? Near-term cost per btu is not the only calculus here. It’s part of it - unaffordable energy isn’t helpful - which is why a mix is the right approach.

I honestly don’t even get your unhinged post.

It's the money.  This is Texas, where only fossil fuels are acceptable to "right minded people".  Anything else threatens their income, whether from their jobs or leases.

[Brisketexan 104803]

Burning gas is clean, certainly relative to coal, and I said nothing about global. I never said a mix wasn’t necessary. I’m not unhinged.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, though that won’t stop you from diarrhea’ing posts that sound reasonable to get rep from others that don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a confederacy of dunces. 

So….I still truly have no idea what you’re talking about or what point you’re trying to make.
Oh…and I have just a touch of direct experience with the operation of the ERCOT market, its generation mix, and its transmission system. And I’m not exactly a stranger to the natural gas business, either. So again, I’m not sure what in the blue hell you’re yelling about.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Don't go all Dick the Butcher on us. 

I’ve known several intimately over the years, seen the boards here overrun with them, and Ol Dick was largely correct. 

3 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

It's the money.  This is Texas, where only fossil fuels are acceptable to "right minded people".  Anything else threatens their income, whether from their jobs or leases.

Partly. FF demand will absolutely be there, and we’re in the beginning of one of the biggest bull runs ever, so I’m not at all worried about my investments. In fact I’m literally working on deploying more as I type. And if renewables overtake our country in my lifetime (they won’t) and cause the prices of those commodities to decline (they won’t - they’re only increasing), then I’ll adjust my investments accordingly. I just abhor the lack of common sense. Natural gas has so much utility, is cleaner than crude and SO much cleaner than coal, and we have an overwhelming abundance of it here. Nah, let’s get cute and emulate Scandinavia. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So….I still truly have no idea what you’re talking about or what point you’re trying to make.
Oh…and I have just a touch of direct experience with the operation of the ERCOT market, its generation mix, and its transmission system. And I’m not exactly a stranger to the natural gas business, either. So again, I’m not sure what in the blue hell you’re yelling about.

My point is that Dahobbs’ optimal mix of electricity generation, with which you seemingly agree but have tempered his 80%, is fantasy, and you can’t mediate your way to where it’ll ever happen or even make sense.  I mean you can get rep points by saying agreeable things, but they have no basis in reality. Despite your experience. As an attorney. 

[Brisketexan 104803]

Partly. FF demand will absolutely be there, and we’re in the beginning of one of the biggest bull runs ever, so I’m not at all worried about my investments. In fact I’m literally working on deploying more as I type. And if renewables overtake our country in my lifetime (they won’t) and cause the prices of those commodities to decline (they won’t - they’re only increasing), then I’ll adjust my investments accordingly. I just abhor the lack of common sense. Natural gas has so much utility, is cleaner than crude and SO much cleaner than coal, and we have an overwhelming abundance of it here. Nah, let’s get cute and emulate Scandinavia. 

Is it the folks pointing to a renewable percentage like Norway’s as admirable? I mean, it is, but it’s not realistic here, which I think most everyone acknowledges?
Again, I think you’re getting all huffy and outraged against a straw man. We should work as much renewable generation into the mix as is reasonably feasible. And as to the FF in the mix, natural gas is definitely the winning choice. I’m not seeing where you and I are in significant disagreement.
Did you just get some whiskey in you and go off? Because if that’s it, I ain’t begrudging you - I like to go there from time to time. Otherwise, I’m not sure what’s up.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Is it the folks pointing to a renewable percentage like Norway’s as admirable? I mean, it is, but it’s not realistic here, which I think most everyone acknowledges?
Again, I think you’re getting all huffy and outraged against a straw man. We should work as much renewable generation into the mix as is reasonably feasible. And as to the FF in the mix, natural gas is definitely the winning choice. I’m not seeing where you and I are in significant disagreement.
Did you just get some whiskey in you and go off? Because if that’s it, I ain’t begrudging you - I like to go there from time to time. Otherwise, I’m not sure what’s up.

Well I just read a post touting various Euro nation’s renewables mix without a tinge of explanation as to why that’s the case. So no I don’t agree that people here acknowledge that as a non-starter. I guess it’s admirable?  What’s admirable is to use the resources God gave you in the most expeditious manner possible. And achieving some far-fetched % of renewables just because will bankrupt us. I don’t agree we should get as much renewables in the mix as is reasonably possible. Not at all. Not with the gas reserves we have. The technologies should be developed and ready to roll and yes they should be a part of the mix. A meaningful part, even. But this country should aspire to 50%+ nat gas generation for the rest of our lifetimes. 

[Biff Tannen 45597]

2 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

It's the money.  This is Texas, where only fossil fuels are acceptable to "right minded people".  Anything else threatens their income, whether from their jobs or leases.

 

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

Well I just read a post touting various Euro nation’s renewables mix without a tinge of explanation as to why that’s the case. So no I don’t agree that people here acknowledge that as a non-starter. I guess it’s admirable?  What’s admirable is to use the resources God gave you in the most expeditious manner possible. And achieving some far-fetched % of renewables just because will bankrupt us. I don’t agree we should get as much renewables in the mix as is reasonably possible. Not at all. Not with the gas reserves we have. The technologies should be developed and ready to roll and yes they should be a part of the mix. A meaningful part, even. But this country should aspire to 50%+ nat gas generation for the rest of our lifetimes. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

Lol. Yeah that about sums up discourse on this board. Hasta luego pinches. 

[elfenix 34207]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Yeah that about sums up discourse on this board.

that's a remarkable amount of self-awareness.

[FartingMonk 3606]

I get the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for environmental reasons but sometimes I feel like we are really trading crack for cocaine.  Is trading fossil fuel extraction for lithium extraction really that much better for the environment?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

It's the money.  This is Texas, where only fossil fuels are acceptable to "right minded people".  Anything else threatens their income, whether from their jobs or leases.

Not using fossil fuels threatens/ damages all of our wallets.

Someone else gets to decide that we should make that sacrifice, for reasons much of the world virtually ignores.  That's the bullshit of it all.

Edited July 21, 2022 by slorch

[Dahobbs 17498]

5 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

My point is that Dahobbs’ optimal mix of electricity generation, with which you seemingly agree but have tempered his 80%, is fantasy, and you can’t mediate your way to where it’ll ever happen or even make sense.  I mean you can get rep points by saying agreeable things, but they have no basis in reality. Despite your experience. As an attorney. 

Stop fucking lying about what I've said. Renewables are 80% of the planned new capacity (I haven't said 80% of total capacity) in fucking Texas. That is a fact. 4/5 of all new generation coming online in Texas this year is renewable. Because the economics are better for them. That's a fact. Yes at 80% and higher of total grid generation you get into supporting costs dominating and the economics get worse. But 60-70% renewable with rest gas/nuclear is what is going to happen regardless of your 80% natural gas fantasy. Get that through your thick fucking skull. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17498]

21 minutes ago, slorch said:

Not using fossil fuels threatens/ damages all of our wallets.

Someone else gets to decide that we should make that sacrifice, for reasons much of the world virtually ignores.  That's the bullshit of it all.

Renewables are better for our wallets. That's why we build them more than anywhere else in the US. 

[Dahobbs 17498]

5 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Well I just read a post touting various Euro nation’s renewables mix without a tinge of explanation as to why that’s the case. 

Lying again. I expressly said that highest percentages were because of hydro. But others like Germany are approaching 50% renewable even without a massive of hydro. All I've said is that higher percentages, but less than 80 to 100%, are doable based on studies and actual real life countries doing it. I've acknowledged that the US has its own challenges due to size/geography. Which is why I think the optimal target is 60 to 70% renewable. It is like every post it immediately gets translated into saying something else by your fucking broken brain. 

[Clackles 276]

6 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

What’s admirable is to use the resources God gave you in the most expeditious manner possible.

I haven’t kept up with all the back and forth in this thread but holy hell, what’s the point if this is one side of the argument.  God gave us stuff to light on fire, and we get paid to light it on fire, so let’s light it all on fire!

[Dahobbs 17498]

4 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I get the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for environmental reasons but sometimes I feel like we are really trading crack for cocaine.  Is trading fossil fuel extraction for lithium extraction really that much better for the environment?

It isn't the extraction that is the problem. It is burning it that it is the problem. We would still need to extract oil even if we stopped all use of fossil fuels. Yes, the trade off of replacing the burning fossil fuels with lithium extraction is most definitely worth it. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Biff Tannen 45597]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It is like every post it immediately gets translated into saying something else by your fucking broken brain. 

AKA the Fox News filter.

[Surly Bevo 24880]

I read this back and forth and as I read one side of it I think about what happens if Kennedy asks, “Why does Rice play Texas” and all the folks at NASA had said, “yea that’s just not ever going to be feasible.”

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

Edited July 21, 2022 by Surly Bevo

[strangulation! 1711]

11 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

You have no idea what you’re talking about, though that won’t stop you from diarrhea’ing posts that sound reasonable to get rep from others that don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a confederacy of dunces. 

new surly motto?

[Neonmoon 38129]

7 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I get the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for environmental reasons but sometimes I feel like we are really trading crack for cocaine.  Is trading fossil fuel extraction for lithium extraction really that much better for the environment?

Isn't that a good thing?

[Brisketexan 104803]

12 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

I read this back and forth and as I read one side of it I think about what happens if Kennedy asks, “Why does Rice play Texas” and all the folks at NASA had said, “yea that’s just not ever going to be feasible.”

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

And I'm not sure why this "debate" gets so fractious.  Most sensible people agree that the extreme positions are folly: 1) convert everything to green sources (solar, wind, hydro) RIGHT NOW!, vs. 2) generate power using the cheapest source available, no matter the secondary costs to society and the globe (e.g., burn coal, with no scrubbing equipment etc.)  So, tossing those two extremes into the trash, then we're left with options somewhere along that spectrum.

Most everyone around here acknowledges that natural gas, especially here in the US, will be and should be a large part of our generation mix for years to come -- it's cheap, it's cleaner than the other FF alternatives, and it's readily available.  Cost and reliability are strong suits, being clean is a moderate suit (it's still a FF, but much better than coal).  Those same folks also acknowledge that renewables in the US (primarily solar and wind) make economic sense as well -- strong suits are the lack of emissions, cost (depending on the resource and location), limitations are reliability and consistency.

Balancing the concerns of reducing emissions and managing costs, renewables are and should be an increasing part of our generation mix.  Which is already happening - their percentage continues to rise, and new generation is heavily weighted towards renewables.

I still don't understand what last night's temper tantrum was all about.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10192]

7 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

I get the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for environmental reasons but sometimes I feel like we are really trading crack for cocaine.  Is trading fossil fuel extraction for lithium extraction really that much better for the environment?

Lithium won't be used in grid level battery storage, there are just too many issues with using it on that scale.

[Biff Tannen 45597]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I still don't understand what last night's temper tantrum was all about.

I'm guessing booze.

[Dahobbs 17498]

27 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Lithium won't be used in grid level battery storage, there are just too many issues with using it on that scale.

It is used the vast majority of existing and planned grid level storage right now. There are different lithium chemistries used, but all have lithium. 

[Guest]

One thing that is encouraging to see is the reduction in the gap between the various positions.  They used to be miles apart, but they keep getting closer and closer and approach convergence.  Some groups emphasize low cost, others emphasize emissions reductions, but virtually all significant players in the industry acknowledge the transition is inevitable and that we need low cost clean energy from a diverse energy production portfolio.  There is agreement on the final goal, which was not always the case.  Now the debate is on the pathway and the timing.   

[FartingMonk 3606]

2 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

One thing that is encouraging to see is the reduction in the gap between the various positions.  They used to be miles apart, but they keep getting closer and closer and approach convergence.  Some groups emphasize low cost, others emphasize emissions reductions, but virtually all significant players in the industry acknowledge the transition is inevitable and that we need low cost clean energy from a diverse energy production portfolio.  There is agreement on the final goal, which was not always the case.  Now the debate is on the pathway and the timing.   

Yep.  That is my thing right now is the timing.  We start kicking off one thing and abandoning the other before we know it works is going to be a big deal.  One thing that is plaguing what is left of the nuclear industry is parts.  People pull out of the game and retool into other things and all of a sudden when they want you back there is nothing to go back to.   That is part of the lesson Germany is learning right now.  

[luke duke 6410]

What’s admirable is to use the resources God gave you in the most expeditious manner possible.

You’re goddam right! Maybe I can start wearing my asbestos winter coat and snort some lines of talcum powder like my grandpa did! I hear that lead paint chips are quite tasty too. Maybe I’ll start putting those in Junior’s lunch this year.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10192]

43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is used the vast majority of existing and planned grid level storage right now. There are different lithium chemistries used, but all have lithium. 

True, for 0-4 hr storage lithium has been great and the planned storage right now is for the 0-4 hr window being able to "shift" some non-peak hour generation into peak hour use, but for anything over 4 hr storage its not likely going to be the answer unless it can be a lot cheaper, they find a way to not have to replace them every 8 or so years and they solve the fire issues.

[dcar00 14085]

6 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

True, for 0-4 hr storage lithium has been great and the planned storage right now is for the 0-4 hr window being able to "shift" some non-peak hour generation into peak hour use, but for anything over 4 hr storage its not likely going to be the answer unless it can be a lot cheaper, they find a way to not have to replace them every 8 or so years and they solve the fire issues.

I'm sure mining for lithium is cheap and easy.

[Trey3216 15325]

What about SMES storage.  I know the expenses involved, but the transfer capacity is much greater and more dependable than Li-ion 

[PTINS 3442]

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Renewables are better for our wallets. That's why we build them more than anywhere else in the US. 

FIFY. Renewables + subsidies & rules are may be better for our, including the companies that own & operate the renewable assets, wallets.   

Companies that operate renewables earn "tax credits" for renewables that can be used to offset tax obligations from FF assets.  

I agree we need more renewables but the playing field is not level.  The subsidies & production preferences and tax credits were put in place to allow renewables to be somewhat competitive w/ fossil fuels.  Renewables should stand some of the costs associated with the NECESSARY standby power that is needed when the renewables aren't producing, and are idled when renewables are producing.

Same thing w/ transmission lines. Fossil fuel plants are located proximate to demand.  Renewables have a larger footprint and are located remotely. Each should pay their proportional costs without one subsidizing the other.  

 

 

 

 

[PTINS 3442]

1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Yep.  That is my thing right now is the timing.  We start kicking off one thing and abandoning the other before we know it works is going to be a big deal.  One thing that is plaguing what is left of the nuclear industry is parts.  People pull out of the game and retool into other things and all of a sudden when they want you back there is nothing to go back to.   That is part of the lesson Germany is learning right now.  

I don't know the specifics of Germany's nuke situation.

I imagine a large part of the timing was related to the replacement of the nuclear fuel and/or major maintenance that was not done predicated on a plant shutdown.  Once they put that plan in motion, it is not something that is easily reversed 

[Wally Fairway 5533]

Someone needs to find a way to turn old (capped) oil wells into gravity batteries, and in locate the solar or wind farms near the wells.
Like regenerative brakes on a car, use the motion of elevators to generate electricity; though I'm sure it would have to be on 20+ story buildings
I'm an idea guy....

And while you are at it, feed mayonnaise to tuna - Mr. Mom, call Starkist

 

[Dahobbs 17498]

 

59 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

I'm sure mining for lithium is cheap and easy.

It isn't inherently more difficult than other times of resource mining. We are just getting to point of extracting it at scale, so there are definitely a lot of efficiencies to be gained through experience and new methods. 

4 minutes ago, PTINS said:

FIFY. Renewables + subsidies & rules are may be better for our, including the companies that own & operate the renewable assets, wallets.   

Companies that operate renewables earn "tax credits" for renewables that can be used to offset tax obligations from FF assets.  

I agree we need more renewables but the playing field is not level.  The subsidies & production preferences and tax credits were put in place to allow renewables to be somewhat competitive w/ fossil fuels.  Renewables should stand some of the costs associated with the NECESSARY standby power that is needed when the renewables aren't producing, and are idled when renewables are producing.

Same thing w/ transmission lines. Fossil fuel plants are located proximate to demand.  Renewables have a larger footprint and are located remotely. Each should pay their proportional costs without one subsidizing the other.  

 

 

 

 

Solar is cheaper than natural gas even without subsidies (see LCOE information from earlier in the thread). Onshore Wind without subsidies is cheaper than all fossil fuels except combined cycle natural gas. It was roughly equal with CC natural gas as of earlier this year prior to the rise in natural gas prices. 

Of course, the fossil fuel industry always receives billions in subsidies from governments, not mention the trillions in indirect subsidies resulting from the externalized costs of climate change/environmental/health damage. So it really isn't fair to say "but subsidies" without accounting for all of that as well. 

[Brisketexan 104803]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

 

It isn't inherently more difficult than other times of resource mining. We are just getting to point of extracting it at scale, so there are definitely a lot of efficiencies to be gained through experience and new methods. 

Solar is cheaper than natural gas even without subsidies (see LCOE information from earlier in the thread). Onshore Wind without subsidies is cheaper than all fossil fuels except combined cycle natural gas. It was roughly equal with CC natural gas as of earlier this year prior to the rise in natural gas prices. 

Of course, the fossil fuel industry always receives billions in subsidies from governments, not mention the trillions in indirect subsidies resulting from the externalized costs of climate change/environmental/health damage. So it really isn't fair to say "but subsidies" without accounting for all of that as well. 

This is correct.  But there IS an inefficiency in the tax credits on renewables -- they are offered without a requirement that the asset be located in a way that its power can actually get to market a sufficient amount of the time.  Incentivizing solar development is good.....but not without companion transmission to get it to where it's needed.  Otherwise, it's not nearly as useful as its nameplate capacity suggests.  If I were poobah, I'd tweak the subsidies for that: require a transmission study showing that the project can meet energy deliverable benchmarks for a certain length of time.

[Dahobbs 17498]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is correct.  But there IS an inefficiency in the tax credits on renewables -- they are offered without a requirement that the asset be located in a way that its power can actually get to market a sufficient amount of the time.  Incentivizing solar development is good.....but not without companion transmission to get it to where it's needed.  Otherwise, it's not nearly as useful as its nameplate capacity suggests.  If I were poobah, I'd tweak the subsidies for that: require a transmission study showing that the project can meet energy deliverable benchmarks for a certain length of time.

Yup. Or require investment into increased transmission (which we need anyway).  Also, laying all of the costs of necessary grid improvements (which are beneficial regardless of whether renewables are on the grid or not) at the feet of renewables as @PTINS isn't a fair way to do it. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Dahobbs

[FartingMonk 3606]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

This is correct.  But there IS an inefficiency in the tax credits on renewables -- they are offered without a requirement that the asset be located in a way that its power can actually get to market a sufficient amount of the time.  Incentivizing solar development is good.....but not without companion transmission to get it to where it's needed.  Otherwise, it's not nearly as useful as its nameplate capacity suggests.  If I were poobah, I'd tweak the subsidies for that: require a transmission study showing that the project can meet energy deliverable benchmarks for a certain length of time.

Oh Jesus can you shut the fuck up for a minute?  One of the biggest things where we fucked up was carbon credits.  Why the fuck do you think so many solar and wind is happening.   They sell the fucking carbon credits back to the polluters.  Get your fucking head out of your ass dude.  The path you claim pollutes.  They suck.  Maybe a little less than the fossil fuels guys.  But they still suck

[PTINS 3442]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Or require investment into increased transmission (which we need anyway).  Also, laying all of the costs of necessary grid improvements (which are beneficial regardless of whether renewables are on the grid or not) at the feet of renewables as @PTINS isn't a fair way to do it. 

I said, "Each should pay their proportional costs without one subsidizing the other."

Each should pay their proportional costs without one subsidizing the other =/= laying all of the costs ... at the feet of renewables. 

[texasdago 7553]

"Most sensible people agree that the extreme positions are folly: 1) convert everything to green sources (solar, wind, hydro) RIGHT NOW!, vs. 2) generate power using the cheapest source available, no matter the secondary costs to society and the globe (e.g., burn coal, with no scrubbing equipment etc.)  So, tossing those two extremes into the trash, then we're left with options somewhere along that spectrum."

 

Yup... and the more you talk to people in the various industries, the more they realize the future is a blend of both options.  But Internet jockeys want to spew positions that are either 1 or 2.

On a side note, all the power generation plants in Texas going gangbusters right now and not getting the maintenance they need.  At some point, something is going to give.  Good times.

[Brisketexan 104803]

24 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Oh Jesus can you shut the fuck up for a minute?  One of the biggest things where we fucked up was carbon credits.  Why the fuck do you think so many solar and wind is happening.   They sell the fucking carbon credits back to the polluters.  Get your fucking head out of your ass dude.  The path you claim pollutes.  They suck.  Maybe a little less than the fossil fuels guys.  But they still suck

Are you talking about tax credits, or RECs?  RECS are tradeable (meaning that yes, they can be and are used to provide emissions credits to utilities that don't have sufficient renewable generation on their own), and are actually tied to power generated AND delivered to the grid (so transmission issues are built in -- can't get it to the grid, no REC for you).  The renewable energy tax credits are different.  But I won't completely disagree with your policy argument -- carbon credits are a half-measure with their own obvious downside.

None of this shit is perfect or perfectly designed.  Because we don't design an energy market from the ground up.  Instead, we step onto a moving vehicle and try to adjust its course to meet certain goals.  Some of those efforts are more successful and more thought out than others.  But at present, the results of the combined trajectory of the market and government incentives have unquestionably boosted the percentage of our overall needed and used generation that is renewable.  So, the mechanisms for achieving that goal are far from perfect, but they have had real and measurable effects.