Renewable Energy Saving Texas' Ass Right Now

[Neonmoon 38130]

24 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

That's my point... 1) I don't think #1 is as true as it has been, and again to my point, 2) even if it were, it isn't affecting the huge investments in renewables in Texas, which means that whatever "rhetoric" (also, reading comprehension, that's one opinion in the artcle) exists, it's not doing anything to counteract the market plodding on.

Yeah I get the subtle political point of the article - "despite ________ (party or legislature or governor or butler or dog catcher, fill in the blank) being anti-renewable in their stance (which I've disagreed with here, especially in the past year), Texas's renewables have saved our asses."  The second part is true, the first not so much.  Not wanting to gobble a shitload of "green energy solutions" to the detriment of fossil fuels is by no means "anti-renewable."  Moderation has now been the operative, and in the Texas market, it's been the driving force, especially since the Big Chill.  So it's no suprise that the renewables have "saved our asses" - Texas investors - and parts of government - are all for it.  In moderation.

No reading comprehension problems on my part.  Hope no others have it. 

Yes, it continues to be a reading comprehension issue. 

I agree with your argument that despite Texas anti-renewable rhetoric, Texas continues to invest in renewables. 

It does not dispute the articles argument that Texas is doing great with renewable energy despite anti-renewable rhetoric. 

1 minute ago, phdhorn said:

Nope, saw it.  Not entirely true.

But did you miss the part where almost all of the wind turbines failed because they froze?

Yeah it was a dumb comment to just blame "renewable energy" in some blanket way - but it wasn't inaccurate that the structures of those energy sources failed in the cold.

That was my point in a post above = the infrastructure to deliver renewables still needs work.  Without it it don't matter a shit what kind of energy you tap.  You still need conventional means to get it to people.

So wind power failed just as much as the freezing of natural gas lines for oil and gas.

It wasn't the type of energy that led to the problem - it was the bad infrastructure. 

This is where the focus needs to go now.  Obviously "rhetoric" or much of anything else has actually stopped Texas' record investments in these sources.  There is no political environment where they're not welcome to develop.  If there are examples of where "rhetoric" has caused problems in energy investment that have actually occurred within the last year, post them.  I would love to see them (no saracsm, I really would).  

Again, you keep trying to make a connection/argument between rhetoric and investment that wasn't posited in the article 

 

[Dahobbs 17682]

 

20 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Did you see them walk it back when it was proven to be wrong?  Nope.  They want their voting base in Lamesa, Jasper and Abilene to make anything that seems "librul" the source of all that is bad.  I'm sure they used AOC + "green new deal" or whatever while blaming renewables. 

EDIT:

Here you go... LOL

Abbott said in an interview with Sean Hannity in the middle of a crisis that “the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America.” Ignoring that experts and officials agreed that a disruption in energy powered by fossil fuels was the biggest culprit behind Texas' outages, Abbott added that losses in wind and solar energy “thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power in a statewide basis.”

 

 Or from July 2021:

Quote

 

Further, Abbott directed his appointees at the utility commission to take aim at wind and solar power, which have been criticized for their perceived unpredictability in producing power, even as failures at natural gas plants played a significant role in power failures during the February freeze and in last month's conservation call.

Abbott directed the utility commission to begin assessing "reliability costs," which could take the form of fines, to power plants "that cannot guarantee their own availability, such as wind or solar power," the letter states.

 

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/SCAN_20210706130409.pdf

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/07/06/texas-governor-targets-renewable-energy-order-texas-public-utility-commission/7878470002/

The rhetoric has been, in very recent times, anti-renewable. I'm honestly shocked that @phdhorn or @Trey3216 are seriously contending that statement is false in some way. It is a matter of public record. 

That said. I do agree that Abbott at least seems to be coming around more recently (see https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Gov-Greg-Abbott-touts-renewable-energy-in-speech-17034702.php). But that doesn't make the statement in the article wrong. Again, Texas has been hypocritical with regards to renewables, saying one thing and largely doing another. But maybe that is changing. 

8 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Nope, saw it.  Not entirely true.

But did you miss the part where almost all of the wind turbines failed because they froze?

Yeah it was a dumb comment to just blame "renewable energy" in some blanket way - but it wasn't inaccurate that the structures of those energy sources failed in the cold.

That was my point in a post above = the infrastructure to deliver renewables still needs work.  Without it it don't matter a shit what kind of energy you tap.  You still need conventional means to get it to people.

So wind power failed just as much as the freezing of natural gas lines for oil and gas.

It wasn't the type of energy that led to the problem - it was the bad infrastructure. 

This is where the focus needs to go now.  Obviously "rhetoric" or much of anything else has actually stopped Texas' record investments in these sources.  There is no political environment where they're not welcome to develop.  If there are examples of where "rhetoric" has caused problems in energy investment that have actually occurred within the last year, post them.  I would love to see them (no saracsm, I really would).  

This is a bit revisionist. Abbott and others didn't say that our infrastructure failed to keep power sources of all types working. They specifically blamed wind and solar. Some wind farms did have issues with frozen blades (because they didn't purchase the heaters that would have prevented any problems). But, overall, wind performed as expected during the winter storm. The shortage was almost entirely on the fossil fuel side. 

[Dahobbs 17682]

11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes, it continues to be a reading comprehension issue. 

I agree with your argument that despite Texas anti-renewable rhetoric, Texas continues to invest in renewables. 

It does not dispute the articles argument that Texas is doing great with renewable energy despite anti-renewable rhetoric. 

Again, you keep trying to make a connection/argument between rhetoric and investment that wasn't posited in the article 

 

That's not  a strong enough statement for the stupidity here. The article actually is making the exact same argument he is. The article's statement is correct. And it is completely consistent with what @phdhorn and @Trey3216 are saying (except for the part where they keep insisting the article's statement is wrong). This is a stupid argument and we are all dumber for having it. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That's not  a strong enough statement for the stupidity here. The article actually is making the exact same argument he is. I don't understand why anyone is disputing it is. The article's statement is correct. And it is completely consistent with what @phdhorn and @Trey3216 are saying (except for the part where they keep insisting the article's statement is wrong). This is a stupid argument and we are all dumber for having it. 

This is correct. 

I'm going to go eat some ribs

[Guest]

On 6/15/2022 at 10:16 AM, Dahobbs said:

Texas isn't doing the investment. Private entities within Texas are doing that, driven by the superior economics of renewables. The government of Texas is pretty clearly anti-renewable based on its rhetoric. Fortunately, that rhetoric hasn't really resulted in substantial anti-renewable legislation (although there has been some), largely I suspect because Texas is also very pro-business. 

Superior economics of renewables. Wow, that is fucking both ballsy and funny. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21921]

On 6/15/2022 at 9:59 AM, dcbc said:

What the hell is a gigawatt?!?

 

/obligatory

 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by NeverMarryAStripper

[Trey3216 15356]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

 Or from July 2021:

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/SCAN_20210706130409.pdf

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/07/06/texas-governor-targets-renewable-energy-order-texas-public-utility-commission/7878470002/

The rhetoric has been, in very recent times, anti-renewable. I'm honestly shocked that @phdhorn or @Trey3216 are seriously contending that statement is false in some way. It is a matter of public record. 

That said. I do agree that Abbott at least seems to be coming around more recently (see https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Gov-Greg-Abbott-touts-renewable-energy-in-speech-17034702.php). But that doesn't make the statement in the article wrong. Again, Texas has been hypocritical with regards to renewables, saying one thing and largely doing another. But maybe that is changing. 

This is a bit revisionist. Abbott and others didn't say that our infrastructure failed to keep power sources of all types working. They specifically blamed wind and solar. Some wind farms did have issues with frozen blades (because they didn't purchase the heaters that would have prevented any problems). But, overall, wind performed as expected during the winter storm. The shortage was almost entirely on the fossil fuel side. 

I would definitely say Texas has been hypocritical about renewables

[Guest]

On 6/15/2022 at 10:31 AM, Storm the Field said:

So, I work in O&G and obviously have a vested interest, but I just don't get the shit I see on LinkedIn from other people in O&G that don't simply harbor doubts about renewables but actively discourage them and point to them as the source of all of our energy woes. The argument is basically that every cent invested in "failed" renewables is a cent that was stolen away from reliable O&G. 

 

O&G is doing just fine and I agree with you. In fact there are quite a few on LinkedIn that kill me with their rhetoric. They pale in comparison to the idiotic comments here in this thread - ones that are “popular posts” - that tout renewables as some meaningful component. They’re not. They’ll get increasingly meaningful but will NEVER have the utility of natural gas. Ever. And we have semi-popular posts like the idiot above who not only suggests but flat out states that renewables offer superior economics. What a fucking moron. 

[bolverk 29718]

28 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

That was my point in a post above = the infrastructure to deliver renewables still needs work.  Without it it don't matter a shit what kind of energy you tap.  You still need conventional means to get it to people.

Dumb question amnesty for the board: How's the experiment with those Tesla towers south of DFW going? Haven't heard anything about them in quite a while.

[JBJ 3665]

The Ercot market is unique in that it pays zero for firm capacity.  This creates a more open market for newcomers, but it also gives sources like wind an advantage that don't exist elsewhere.  Wind literally drops to 0 at times.  It did a couple times during the freeze and will continue to do so for as long as we use it (storage aside).  When people say it's inherently unreliable that's because it simply is.  It comes and goes with the wind.

That doesn't mean we can't make it part of the energy system.  That just means we need to incentivize firm capacity (including stored wind) like everyone else does, or conversely, punish intermittent generators to ensure we keep the right balance of power to keep us powered during the worst possible scenarios.

Edited June 16, 2022 by JBJ

[Foosters 17888]

2 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

O&G is doing just fine and I agree with you. In fact there are quite a few on LinkedIn that kill me with their rhetoric. They pale in comparison to the idiotic comments here in this thread - ones that are “popular posts” - that tout renewables as some meaningful component. They’re not. They’ll get increasingly meaningful but will NEVER have the utility of natural gas. Ever. And we have semi-popular posts like the idiot above who not only suggests but flat out states that renewables offer superior economics. What a fucking moron. 

Damn bro, show us where the wind and sun touched you

[kevwun 15897]

The sun once bit his sister and his father died of wind cancer.

[Dahobbs 17682]

19 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Superior economics of renewables. Wow, that is fucking both ballsy and funny. 

I've posted this many times, but I'll do it again:

Based on LCOE in the United States, with or without renewable subsidies (but including all indirect subsidies for fossil fuels), solar is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Onshore wind is roughly even with combined cycle and cheaper than other fossil fuel options. Of course, this is a March 2022 report and doesn't include recent price hikes in natural gas. I do note that the addition of storage will drive solar to be higher than combined cycle in this estimate. However, storage is largely unnecessary until reaching higher percentages of renewables on the grid (and there are plenty of studies on that if you need cites). Notably, battery storage systems are quickly reaching price parity with combustion turbines, which is a pretty big deal since they largely serve the same purpose in the grid.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Keep in mind, the EIA estimates for new renewable generation have been notoriously low-balled, with actual generation doing better than these predictions pretty much every year. There is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

9 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

O&G is doing just fine and I agree with you. In fact there are quite a few on LinkedIn that kill me with their rhetoric. They pale in comparison to the idiotic comments here in this thread - ones that are “popular posts” - that tout renewables as some meaningful component. They’re not. They’ll get increasingly meaningful but will NEVER have the utility of natural gas. Ever. And we have semi-popular posts like the idiot above who not only suggests but flat out states that renewables offer superior economics. What a fucking moron. 

I have no idea what that means. Plenty of countries have renewables generating a majority of their power. But there are certain things gas is better at right now and it needs to stay in the mix (particular as a capacity resource technology as defined above for combustion turbines). 

As to your last sentence, again, there is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've posted this many times, but I'll do it again:

Based on LCOE in the United States, with or without renewable subsidies (but including all indirect subsidies for fossil fuels), solar is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Onshore wind is roughly even with combined cycle and cheaper than other fossil fuel options. Of course, this is a March 2022 report and doesn't include recent price hikes in natural gas. I do note that the addition of storage will drive solar to be higher than combined cycle in this estimate. However, storage is largely unnecessary until reaching higher percentages of renewables on the grid (and there are plenty of studies on that if you need cites). Notably, battery storage systems are quickly reaching price parity with combustion turbines, which is a pretty big deal since they largely serve the same purpose in the grid.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Keep in mind, the EIA estimates for new renewable generation have been notoriously low-balled, with actual generation doing better than these predictions pretty much every year. There is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

I have no idea what that means. Plenty of countries have renewables generating a majority of their power. But there are certain things gas is better at right now and it needs to stay in the mix (particular as a capacity resource technology as defined above for combustion turbines). 

As to your last sentence, again, there is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

We’re talking about 2 different things, maybe. You’re talking about utilities using renewables as feedstock, I guess. I’m talking about investment in either solar or natural gas directly. Oil and gas has VASTLY superior returns to any private investment in solar or wind or any other renewable. If that’s what in fact you were arguing, don’t bother responding because you’re a terrible human. 

I don’t think you were and I apologize if I misread. Still, you’re not really on point for a few reasons. One is circumstantial with commodity prices where they are. Another is nat gas’s unquestioned superior reliability and energy utility. But I could buy a general “renewables have their place in this really high price environment” argument, because, why not if you can provide a cheaper mousetrap?  I’m not anti-economics by any stretch, but I don’t really buy the numbers in your links. 

[Dahobbs 17682]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

We’re talking about 2 different things, maybe. You’re talking about utilities using renewables as feedstock, I guess. I’m talking about investment in either solar or natural gas directly. Oil and gas has VASTLY superior returns to any private investment in solar or wind or any other renewable. If that’s what in fact you were arguing, don’t bother responding because you’re a terrible human. 

I don’t think you were and I apologize if I misread. Still, you’re not really on point for a few reasons. One is circumstantial with commodity prices where they are. Another is nat gas’s unquestioned superior reliability and energy utility. But I could buy a general “renewables have their place in this really high price environment” argument, because, why not if you can provide a cheaper mousetrap?  I’m not anti-economics by any stretch, but I don’t really buy the numbers in your links. 

Using renewables as feedstock? I'm talking about the cost to generate electricity. But, I see you're a ignore reality type of guy. Whatever floats your boat. Renewables are more economical right now and that isn't changing. 

But, you don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the numbers above. But, you could also ask Deloitte (https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/power-and-utilities/us-renewable-energy-transition.html):

Quote

 

Comparing costs of wind and solar versus conventional generation

Common perception: Solar and wind are too expensive, or they are only competitive with conventional generation plants because of government incentives, such as tax credits.

Reality and industry perspectives: Solar and wind have become the cheapest power generation sources across most of the United States and the world, even without tax incentives and with integration costs included. In many cases, these resources are competitive even with battery storage included. And costs continue falling.

Or you could just look at what companies are actually investing in and what new capacity is planned. The answer is renewables:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818

Quote

In 2022, we expect 46.1 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric generating capacity to be added to the U.S. power grid, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.

Developers and power plant owners report planned additions to us in our annual and monthly electric generator surveys. In the annual survey, we ask respondents to provide planned online dates for generators coming online in the next five years. The monthly survey tracks the status of generators coming online based on reported in-service dates.

Solar. We expect U.S. utility-scale solar generating capacity to grow by 21.5 GW in 2022. This planned new capacity would surpass last year’s 15.5 GW of solar capacity additions, an estimate based on reported additions through October (8.7 GW) and additions scheduled for the last two months of 2021 (6.9 GW). Most planned solar additions in 2022 will be in Texas (6.1 GW, or 28% of the national total), followed by California (4.0 GW).

Natural gas. In 2022, we expect 9.6 GW of new natural gas-fired capacity to come online. Combined-cycle plants account for 8.1 GW of the planned capacity additions (over 84%), and combustion-turbine plants account for 1.4 GW. Almost all (88%) of the planned natural gas capacity is located in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Illinois.

Wind. In 2021, a record-high 17.1 GW of wind capacity came online in the United States. We based this estimate on reported additions through October (9.9 GW) and planned additions in November and December (7.2 GW). Another 7.6 GW of wind capacity is scheduled to come online in 2022. About half (51%) of the 2022 wind capacity additions are located in Texas. The 999 MW Traverse Wind Energy Center in Oklahoma, the largest wind project expected to come online in 2022, is scheduled to begin commercial operations in April.

Battery storage. We expect U.S. utility-scale battery storage capacity to grow by 5.1 GW, or 84%, in 2022. Several factors have helped expand U.S. battery storage, including declining costs of battery storage, deploying battery storage with renewable generation, and adding value through regional transmission organization (RTO) markets.

Nuclear. Another 5% of the country’s planned electric capacity additions in 2022 will come from two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. One of these reactors, Unit 3, was expected to come online in 2021, but the unit’s planned start date was delayed until June 2022 to allow additional time for construction and testing.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/122821-commodities-2022-most-new-us-generating-capacity-will-be-solar-followed-by-wind

Quote

Commodities 2022: Most new US generating capacity will be solar, followed by wind

https://electrek.co/2022/03/07/solar-and-battery-storage-make-up-60-of-planned-new-us-electric-generation-capacity/

Quote

Power plant developers and operators are expected to add 51 gigawatts (GW) of new solar and battery storage projects to the US power grid from 2022 to 2023, which will make up 60% of new generating capacity, according to the US Energy Information Administration

Or, we could ignore that information and assume that all the companies actually building new capacity are acting irrationally since gas is a much better investment. You tell me what is more likely. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Using renewables as feedstock? I'm talking about the cost to generate electricity. But, I see you're a ignore reality type of guy. Whatever floats your boat. Renewables are more economical right now and that isn't changing. 

But, you don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the numbers above. But, you could also ask Deloitte (https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/power-and-utilities/us-renewable-energy-transition.html😞

Or you could just look at what companies are actually investing in and what new capacity is planned. The answer is renewables:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/122821-commodities-2022-most-new-us-generating-capacity-will-be-solar-followed-by-wind

https://electrek.co/2022/03/07/solar-and-battery-storage-make-up-60-of-planned-new-us-electric-generation-capacity/

Or, we could ignore that information and assume that all the companies actually building new capacity are acting irrationally since gas is a much better investment. You tell me what is more likely. 

I just said I misunderstood what you were saying originally and was apologizing. Using renewables as feedstock = using renewables to generate electricity.

You seem to fail to understand the distinction between what you actually meant and the idiotic comment “superior economics of renewables” in a vacuum. Not one person on earth would conclude returns have been better owning a solar / wind company versus a natural gas production company. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20493]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes, it continues to be a reading comprehension issue. 

I agree with your argument that despite Texas anti-renewable rhetoric, Texas continues to invest in renewables. 

It does not dispute the articles argument that Texas is doing great with renewable energy despite anti-renewable rhetoric. 

Again, you keep trying to make a connection/argument between rhetoric and investment that wasn't posited in the article 

 

Thank you. I'm not understanding why PHD Horn is having such difficulty getting this. He's usually a pretty smart feller.

[Dahobbs 17682]

8 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I just said I misunderstood what you were saying originally and was apologizing. Using renewables as feedstock = using renewables to generate electricity.

You seem to fail to understand the distinction between what you actually meant and the idiotic comment “superior economics of renewables” in a vacuum. Not one person on earth would conclude returns have been better owning a solar / wind company versus a natural gas production company. 

I'm quite clear on what I mean. This whole discussion is about the cheapest way to generate power. In that regard, renewables are superior.  I think you're trying to talk about investment advice for people looking where to park their retirement maybe? That analysis may be different since the risk/reward of purchasing a particular stock isn't necessarily the same as the economics of a building a power plant. It is also entirely irrelevant to the discussion we were having, although, renewable based stocks have done very well over the 5 years (First Solar +70%, Enphase +22,000%, Sunrun +265%,  vs Exxon at + 8%, Chevron +42%, Shell -3%, BP -17%, Oxy - 9%, Devon +98% ). 

Regarding your statement in bold, I think your phrasing in the past tense makes that statement correct. Over its 150 year history, the oil and industry has definitely delivered larger overall returns than the nascent renewable industry. However, if we shift to forward looking, the numbers change and renewables are in a much stronger position. And this is confirmed by the companies that actually build power generating facilities. Otherwise, they would be building more natural gas plants and not Wind/Solar farms.

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52600]

Well forward looking takes into account the changes/changing regulatory landscape, yes?  Which is driving down the use of fossil fuels for energy. 

[hullabelew 3724]

23 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

This is largely a misunderstanding of the economics of wind farms. Old blades generally don't need to be replaced in the sense that they stop working. It is just economical to do so because we've learned that in general, bigger blades are better. So, replacing old blades with larger ones and combining them with larger generators is a relatively small expense vs the increased efficiency. Recycling is possible, it just isn't done much yet. You'll likely see that industry spring up as more wind farms get built, the same way you're now seeing increases in lithium ion battery recycling. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info and the articles.  I thought they are probably putting in larger generators.  I just found it odd that they replaced the blades at about the 8 year mark.  

Edited June 16, 2022 by hullabelew

[phdhorn 6224]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Yes, it continues to be a reading comprehension issue. 

I agree with your argument that despite Texas anti-renewable rhetoric, Texas continues to invest in renewables. 

It does not dispute the articles argument that Texas is doing great with renewable energy despite anti-renewable rhetoric. 

Again, you keep trying to make a connection/argument between rhetoric and investment that wasn't posited in the article 

 

Assuming this is the case (and even if it is it doesn't matter), then what's the point of even putting a quasi-political article (which really does miss its own point) in DT?  Who said that an article can't encourage tangent points of discussion - that's what good articles do.  Otherwise, what's the point?  Just to nod quietly and hit posrep?  Of course I'm making that argument as a non-political response to a basically political one  - the tone of the article.  Yeah, I said I agree that some of the rhetoric has been made (again, most of it over a year ago, things have changed now).  But also that if this is supposed to be some type of "gotcha!" it really isn't, because Texas market and political environments have encouraged the growth of nonrenewables - as well as continued to promote the use of fossil fuels - especially in the past year.

So, I am making the arguments that, while 1) I agree that there has been anti-renewable rhetoric, 2) the state itself doesn't have much of a political one, as nothing has stopped record investment, so 3) so what about the "rhetoric?"  Yeah people say shit all the time that doesn't mean much.

I've tried to take what is (in my opinion) a somewhat blatant attempt to put a political argument into DT.  What I did was try to counteract it by showing that in reality, the market transcends politics largely, and that if you look at the record, that "rhetoric" is fairly meaningless.

Even the article itself contains somewhat of a contradiction, within a single sentence to boot:

Despite the Texas Republican rhetoric that wind and solar are unreliable, Texas has a massive and growing fleet of renewables. Zero-carbon electricity sources (wind, solar, and nuclear) powered about 38% of the state’s power in 2021, rivaling natural gas at 42%.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon for the state.

So is this article saying that "despite the "rhetoric" (whatever real consequences it's had - pretty much none), somehow the State managed to ram through an environment that produced record nonrenewable investment?  That through great labor and hardship, they managed this amazing record?   I say nope, it's due to a cheap market which Texas has had in just about every economic area, particularly in the past 30 years - and despite the "rhetoric", these investments have skyrocketed - far beyond even California, a larger and supposedly much more renewable-friendly state.  I.e. a productive environment which allows this.  Therefore the "rhetoric" is a pretty weak point - no one is "surprised" that these renewables are doing what they are - they've been worked into the energy system in Texas, both politically and economically.

I see the "rhetoric".  And I've posted several times already that it was dumb and pretty much (not entirely) wrong.  But the tide is turning politically.

Anyway point is that whatever the political verbage, the reality of this state is that it's been open for nonrenewable development, to record levels.  So much for some type of "rhetoric" tamping down the reality of the markets.

Anyway, I think this has been a great discussion and I appreciate those who have especially quoted stuff and tried to discuss the article.  You make good points and I agree in part. I think we just disagree on the "so what then".  If one posts this, then one must expect thoughts about it.  And I for one absolutely believe that making a connection between rhetoric and reality is key to discussing this article. 

(p.s. this article eerily parallels one written a few days later in the San Antonio Current, a left-leaning more political publication akin to our Chronicle.  Just in case people want to read more:  https://www.sacurrent.com/news/despite-texas-gops-rhetoric-renewables-are-keeping-the-lights-on-amid-states-sweltering-summer-29147649)

[Dahobbs 17682]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well forward looking takes into account the changes/changing regulatory landscape, yes?  Which is driving down the use of fossil fuels for energy. 

Yes I guess? I'm not sure I understand the question. Per the LCOE numbers, solar is cheaper now regardless of whether it receives subsidies or not if that is what you're asking.  

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17682]

5 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

So is this article saying that "despite the "rhetoric" (whatever real consequences it's had - pretty much none), somehow the State managed to ram through an environment that produced record nonrenewable investment?  

Yes, that's what the article is saying. I don't know why you've taken such pains to essentially repeat that conclusion under the guise of disagreement. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm quite clear on what I mean. This whole discussion is about the cheapest way to generate power. In that regard, renewables are superior.  I think you're trying to talk about investment advice for people looking where to park their retirement maybe? That analysis may be different since the risk/reward of purchasing a particular stock isn't necessarily the same as the economics of a building a power plant. It is also entirely irrelevant to the discussion we were having, although, renewable based stocks have done very well over the 5 years (First Solar +70%, Enphase +22,000%, Sunrun +265%,  vs Exxon at + 8%, Chevron +42%, Shell -3%, BP -17%, Oxy - 9%, Devon +98% ). 

Regarding your statement in bold, I think your phrasing in the past tense makes that statement correct. Over its 150 year history, the oil and industry has definitely delivered larger overall returns than the nascent renewable industry. However, if we shift to forward looking, the numbers change and renewables are in a much stronger position. And this is confirmed by the companies that actually build power generating facilities. Otherwise, they would be building more natural gas plants and not Wind/Solar farms.

 

 

On your first statement, I apologized because your intent should’ve been obvious to me. But it wasn’t because I’m pretty literal and if you take your comment as a snippet, it’s just wrong. And it’s not “retirement advice”; it’s looking at investors’ returns on projects over the last 2 years and for the foreseeable future. You can’t compare anything over the last 5 years because 2014-2020 (YE ‘14-‘20) was the worst 6-year stretch in history. And you’re comparing apples and oranges with very small renewables companies to very large integrated major oil companies and very large independents. It is a curious selection to say the least. 

2nd paragraph - there is a massive difference in investment in hydrocarbons versus renewables, and investment for power generation. And of course there will be a sharper increase in renewables as a feedstock for power generation - refineries/gas plants already exist and are running at full capacity. Plus, new gas plants, cryogenic and otherwise, are always being added to process natural gas. New pipelines are always being brought online. New LNG terminals / tankers are being brought on production. It is a massive capital infrastructure effort that dwarfs renewables. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

24 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Thank you. I'm not understanding why PHD Horn is having such difficulty getting this. He's usually a pretty smart feller.

That's because y'all CR simpleton dildo's twist everything into a total us versus them cartoon.  So, "Renewables are fine for supplement power, but battery tech to replace the gas, coal, & nuke plants (for when the sun don't shine or wind doesn't blow as much as needed) just isn't there yet and won't be for many years" gets slandered into, "Renewables don't work and we should never build them and they cause autism!!!" 

Most of the opposition to the rush to close down gas/coal/nuke and quickly replace with wind/solar is based on

1. Increased risk if too much of the generating balance switches before the tech is ready, since weather can at times swing wildly from predicted

2. Cost - much of renewables are still heavily subsidized directly or indirectly

3. ESG, EPA, and other tools of government have been pulling strings, incentivizing, manipulating, and using other forms of pressure to force change ahead of tech/scale capabilities, often regardless of 1 & 2.  To say this is all or even mostly market driven is ultimately BS when you trace back.  There's multiple elements, but it usually gets twisted into good/Hitler evil storylines.

Also, please start an, "Austin Water is saving your ass right now" thread, since your toilets have flushed today, yes?  Not sure why the 'almost 40%' should get more credit than the 60+%, but agenda.  LOL, when regulations keep getting ratcheted up to make coal, gas, and nuke plants more costly to operate and require expensive upgrades, games played with permitting, ESG activist investors and ESG enticements/penalties on lenders and the tax codes make continued operation or new builds of C/G/N plants uneconomical, well yeah, there's not much choice but to increase renewables as a percentage of generation.  You use what you have and can afford within the reg/lending environment.  But congrats, I guess, to Big Renewables for becoming almost 40% at the moment (during one of the windiest Springs that Texas has seen), like the recent hire of the CEO's kid right out of school, I'm sure it's 100% merit and should be applauded as such....

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20493]

6 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Not sure why the 'almost 40%' should get more credit than the 60+% 

 

You read the article and you think that it makes the claim that the 40% should get more credit than the 60%  or that anybody here is making that claim?

I can see the problem: your reading comprehension. 
 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Chewbacca 7785]

New pipelines are always being brought online. New LNG terminals / tankers are being brought on production. It is a massive capital infrastructure effort that dwarfs renewables. 

I think you seriously underestimate the amount of renewable infrastructure coming online right now. It's massive.

[Dahobbs 17682]

21 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

On your first statement, I apologized because your intent should’ve been obvious to me. But it wasn’t because I’m pretty literal and if you take your comment as a snippet, it’s just wrong. And it’s not “retirement advice”; it’s looking at investors’ returns on projects over the last 2 years and for the foreseeable future. You can’t compare anything over the last 5 years because 2014-2020 (YE ‘14-‘20) was the worst 6-year stretch in history. And you’re comparing apples and oranges with very small renewables companies to very large integrated major oil companies and very large independents. It is a curious selection to say the least. 

2nd paragraph - there is a massive difference in investment in hydrocarbons versus renewables, and investment for power generation. And of course there will be a sharper increase in renewables as a feedstock for power generation - refineries/gas plants already exist and are running at full capacity. Plus, new gas plants, cryogenic and otherwise, are always being added to process natural gas. New pipelines are always being brought online. New LNG terminals / tankers are being brought on production. It is a massive capital infrastructure effort that dwarfs renewables. 

Yes, oil and gas is a bigger industry right now. I don't think anyone debates that. And in terms of total dollars returned, oil and gas has returned more money to investors. I don't think any debates that. It is after all the older, more established industry. But, if the question is where should  a power generating company invest its funds (I'm not talking about anything else oil and gas does like petrochemicals or even gas for cars, just power generation),  then the answer is going to be renewables. They just have a better bang for your buck right now in that particular space. That's what the economics says. And that is why 80% of new generation coming online this year and for the foreseeable future is going to be renewable.  

As to your criticism of my stock selection, I chose some of the bigger players in the renewable space. It is a growing sector, not an established one with large entrenched players. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Dahobbs

[JBJ 3665]

31 minutes ago, hullabelew said:

Thanks for the info and the articles.  I thought they are probably putting in larger generators.  I just found it odd that they replaced the blades at about the 8 year mark.  

Repowering extends PTC subsidies.  Blades do wear out and lose efficiency, but they wouldn't be replacing blades so quickly without the perverse tax incentive.

[Dahobbs 17682]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Repowering extends PTC subsidies.  Blades do wear out and lose efficiency, but they wouldn't be replacing blades so quickly without the perverse tax incentive.

That's definitely part of it. But they wouldn't be replacing them if the bigger blades/generators didn't drive such dramatic improvements in efficiency. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

30 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

So, I am making the arguments that, while 1) I agree that there has been anti-renewable rhetoric, 2) the state itself doesn't have much of a political one, as nothing has stopped record investment, so 3) so what about the "rhetoric?"  Yeah people say shit all the time that doesn't mean much.

You agree there has been anti-renewable rhetoric? So you agree with the article? Great. We all agree that it doesn't make sense there is anti-renewable rhetoric when Texas is clearly pro-renewable. We all agree!!!!!!

I'm not going to discuss why rhetoric matters. If you believe rhetoric by elected officials doesn't matter, I don't know what to tell you man. 

 

 

[phdhorn 6224]

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I'm not going to discuss why rhetoric matters. If you believe rhetoric by elected officials doesn't matter, I don't know what to tell you man.

Fair enough. If you don't believe that sometimes rhetoric doesn't matter and is often pointless, as in this case, I don't know what to tell you man.

Moving on, interesting timing, Texas just cut a major deal this week with a Canadian solar company to store solar energy for more ERCOT power.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/06/16/recurrent-energy-acquires-two-stand-alone-energy-storage-projects-in-ercot-territory/?fr=operanews

Edited June 16, 2022 by phdhorn

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

 

 

I think you seriously underestimate the amount of renewable infrastructure coming online right now. It's massive.

 

I don’t. I just know the dollars deployed in hydrocarbon processing and new infrastructure. Energy users are constantly growing worldwide and it will take a Village to meet their needs. 

[Trey3216 15356]

58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, that's what the article is saying. I don't know why you've taken such pains to essentially repeat that conclusion under the guise of disagreement. 

Because it's a hilarious "gotcha Texas!!!" attempt at an article when there's no fucking gotcha to it.  Much more "gaucho" (slang gaucho) than gotcha.  

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, oil and gas is a bigger industry right now. I don't think anyone debates that. And in terms of total dollars returned, oil and gas has returned more money to investors. I don't think any debates that. It is after all the older, more established industry. But, if the question is where should  a power generating company invest its funds (I'm not talking about anything else oil and gas does like petrochemicals or even gas for cars, just power generation),  then the answer is going to be renewables. They just have a better bang for your buck right now in that particular space. That's what the economics says. And that is why 80% of new generation coming online this year and for the foreseeable future is going to be renewable.  

As to your criticism of my stock selection, I chose some of the bigger players in the renewable space. It is a growing sector, not an established one with large entrenched players. 

Fair enough on power generation and that alone. I’ll concede you have an interesting point with respect to really high US nat gas prices right now. Though they have calmed somewhat in recent days. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

I hate that article mainly because it lumps nuclear with wind and solar.  Nuclear is only convenient when talking capacity.  Nuclears ability to act as on demand energy is also very important when speaking of capacity.  The whole reason people in the energy business does not trust renewables is because wind and solar do not have on demand capability yet is why they are such a headache to deal with.  We can huff and puff all we.want about how great wind and solar is but until we get them into the on demand capability they will continue to be viewed as unreliable.

[Grimas 671]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm quite clear on what I mean. This whole discussion is about the cheapest way to generate power. In that regard, renewables are superior.  

Not trying to turn this into a CR discussion but you are absolutely incorrect.  If you look at the EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Investment) – how much energy we get back if we spend to generate 1 unit of energy. For solar this means – how much more energy does a solar panel generate in its lifetime than is used to create it? Solar and wind suck compared to other sources of power generation and storage based on the cost to generate it...

This calculation is based on what it costs to construct the facility (the panel, the windmill, the well, the coal or nuke plant) with all costs included.  Wind and solar energy can't be stored efficiently until better battery technology is developed...  Need more energy right now, feed more coal/gas/neutron into the plant as it's energy stored.  Wind not blowing or it's dark outside, solar or wind sit idle and generate nothing... Coal, hydro, nuke and coal can run 24/7 if needed.  Sun and solar - well, that depends on the weather...

New nuke technology is closer to 120 on the graph below... (Buffered is the equivalent of energy storage...)

(And no, I'm not a nuke guy other than it makes the most sense in the long-term future.  And no, I don't want a want a plant anywhere near where i live unless you send me a royalty or lease check as mailbox money...)

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Grimas

[Dahobbs 17682]

1 hour ago, Grimas said:

Not trying to turn this into a CR discussion but you are absolutely incorrect.  If you look at the EROEI. (Energy Return On Energy Investment) – how much energy we get back if we spend to generate 1 unit of energy. For solar this means – how much more energy does a solar panel generate in its lifetime than is used to create it? Solar and wind suck compared to other sources of power generation and storage based on the cost to generate it...

This calculation is based on what it costs to construct the facility (the panel, the windmill, the well, the coal or nuke plant) with all costs included.  Wind and solar energy can't be stored efficiently until better battery technology is developed...  Need more energy right now, feed more coal/gas/neutron into the plant as it's energy stored.  Wind not blowing or it's dark outside, solar or wind sit idle and generate nothing... Coal, hydro, nuke and coal can run 24/7 if needed.  Sun and solar - well, that depends on the weather...

New nuke technology is closer to 120 on the graph below... (Buffered is the equivalent of energy storage...)

(And no, I'm not a nuke guy other than it makes the most sense in the long-term future.  And no, I don't want a want a plant anywhere near where i live unless you send me a royalty or lease check as mailbox money...)

 

 

Source on that chart? I vaguely recognize it and I'm pretty sure it's from a pre 2015 article that was roundly criticized at the time. EROI is often championed by those that favor investment in nuclear power. And that's because nuclear power produces a lot of energy in comparison to how much it takes to create it. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the economics of nuclear, which simply haven't been favorable in decades. EROI is an interesting concept, and certainly sources that require more energy input than they output would be ones to avoid. But, beyond that, it isn't a particular useful metric. And part of that is the practical difficulties of calculating EROI. How far down the supply chain and supporting resources do you go?  At what point do you count the energy production? I'm not aware of anyone actually using EROI to plan or predict development. It is an interesting academic question, but that is largely where it has stayed. 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Dahobbs

[twosheds 374]

I happen to like the way wind farms look. 
 

I like the way they keep me awake with their flashing lights on the overnight road trip to Pagosa Springs

[Homercles 10206]

I invested in nuclear power once.  Once

[Ag with kids 581]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:37 PM, Captainant said:

I'm a proponent of nuclear energy, but this is incorrect - they released quite a bit of radioactive gas into the atmosphere. The recently released netflix docuseries on TMI is some pretty solid factual reporting too that highlights how everyone was on edge because of the recent release of The China Syndrome that had an eerily similar incident starting with a turbine trip

We've come a loooooong way in understanding power coefficients and passive safety, but for the foreseeable future there's going to be justified concerns and skepticism around nuclear because of the stakes - not the risks. New reactor designs are passively safe without outside power, and once a nation-state perfects the tech (probably the French...) I'd imagine that they come back into fashion after a looooooong PR campaign

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx

Quote

• Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents.
• There were no injuries or adverse health effects from the Three Mile Island accident.

 

[Captainant 27771]

21 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx

 

Yeah, and only 31 people died from Chernobyl lol. The unfortunate truth is that the residents who lived in the area around TMI have a significantly higher than baseline rate of cancer, and due to the nature of nuclear exposure, you're never going to be able to definitively attribute it as the cause of a cancer. 

My point being: I believe modern nuclear reactor designs are significantly safer and less risky than old gen 2 and 3 reactors. But it's not unreasonable for people to be fearful considering the stakes of getting it wrong - not the risks of it going wrong. As I said in an earlier post, lotta ground to cover, and I think the new gen4 passively safe reactors will be a huge step getting us there

[Grimas 671]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Source on that chart? I vaguely recognize and I'm pretty sure it's from a pre 2015 article that was roundly criticized at the time. EROI is often championed by those that favor investment in nuclear power. And that's because nuclear power produces a lot of energy in comparison to how much it takes to create it. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the economics of nuclear, which simply haven't been favorable in decades. EROI is an interesting concept, and certainly sources that require more energy input than they output would be ones to avoid. But, beyond that, it isn't a particular useful metric. And part of that is the practical difficulties of calculating EROI. How down the supply chain and supporting resources do you go?  At what point do you count the energy production? I'm not unaware of anyone actually using EROI to plan or predict development. It is an interesting academic question, but that is largely where it has stayed. 

 

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

To be honest, I don't remember the source of the graph was as I has it on a folder on my hard drive.

Regardless - go ahead and drop nuke out of the discussion if you want for arguments sake -  solar and wind still are at the mercy of the weather/location/season and are not the "cheapest way' to generate power. Go to the base level of cost vs. power generation (MINUS gov't subsidies and the utilization of existing infrastructure like pipelines/powerlines/refineries/inverters/batteries/etc.) and show me where the cost per KW generated is better with "renewables" than most existing sources of energy...

Until energy storage capacity become more efficient (which it isn't in large scale applications) to capture generated as well as take into account that you can only generate power say, 50% of the time depending on location/season, they aren't efficient as other sources of energy like hydro, coal or gas.  Coal and gas (and hydro but it's being more limited now by weather as well) are "stored energy" - meaning I can convert them to energy on demand which I can't do currently with solar or wind.  IIRC, solar is about 15-20% efficient (in terms of energy created when the sun hits the panes for those "12 hours" (time/season/latitude) a day) vs (up to) 40% for coal and up to 60% for natural gas where the remaining energy is lost to some form of heat.

In my earlier comment, DONG/Orstad would not have taken the path it did if the government subsidies didn't exist and would have lost money and gone under if those government subsidies didn't exist.  Take the subsidies out of the equation (for oil/gas/hydro/solar/wind) and level the playing field to actual energy efficiency and there isn't a fair comparison to say renewables are a superior way to generate the cheapest power... Someone (via their taxes) is covering the costs for the subsidies but in terms of pure energy efficiency for generating on-demand power regarding the supply of energy, there are more efficient ways to generate power 24/7 than "renewables"...  At least until energy stage technology (batteries) gets better, you can't run an economy 100% on "renewables"... (A factory that needs to run 24/7 - are you gonna depend 100% on "renewables"? Good luck with that...  Mercedes in Germany will soon find out...)

Drop subsidies out of all - oil/gas/hydro/nuclear/solar/wind/hydro- and then show me "renewables" (sorry, only hydro is truly "renewable") are the cheapest way to generate power compared to the others...

(Similar when folks at Chesapeake/PetroHawk/others tried to say "unconventionals" were a different type of reservoir and convinced the SEC to change the financial "rules" - ignore the "sunk costs" of leasing the land and everything else in the pre-drill  economics and let's just focus on costs and profit once we drill the well and forecast 30 years of production as these don't behave like "conventional reservoirs" - decline curves don't apply here!- when in reality, if you don't make back your investment in 18-24 months, you didn't make money...) Ignoring the actual physics/science and "trust us, it (appears) cheaper"...

[Dahobbs 17682]

6 minutes ago, Grimas said:

Go to the base level of cost vs. power generation (MINUS gov't subsidies and the utilization of existing infrastructure like pipelines/powerlines/refineries/inverters/batteries/etc.) and show me where the cost per KW generated is better with "renewables" than most existing sources of energy...

Drop subsidies out of all - oil/gas/hydro/nuclear/solar/wind/hydro- and then show me "renewables" (sorry, only hydro is truly "renewable") are the cheapest way to generate power compared to the others...

I already did that. Solar LCOE even without renewable subsidies (but still with billions in fossil fuel subsidies) is cheaper. Just look at the data. 

Now, your other point about on demand is fair. But it really only becomes an issue when renewables are a higher percentage of grid capacity. If we wanted to get to 100% or even 90% renewables, yes, you'll have to have significant overcapacity, storage, and/or regional interconnects. But, on a pure cost per kWh produced, solar is cheaper. 

[Grimas 671]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I already did that. Solar LCOE even without renewable subsidies (but still with billions in fossil fuel subsidies) is cheaper. Just look at the data. 

Now, your other point about on demand is fair. But it really only becomes an issue when renewables are a higher percentage of grid capacity. If we wanted to get to 100% or even 90% renewables, yes, you'll have to have significant overcapacity, storage, and/or regional interconnects. But, on a pure cost per kWh produced, solar is cheaper. 

I guess I missed you post with the "data". I guess the banks and private equity people I deal with daily missed your posts as well... I apologize for all of us in advance...

My last comment I'm gonna make on this thread as this isn't the CR but didnt you post 2-3 years ago that you spent 15k on a $30k solar system for your house with the subsidies and discounts covering the other half you didn't have to pay? Not that I have anything against taking advantage of anything available but would you have still bought/leased the system without the subsidies/discounts? Looks more attractive when someone else is footing half the total cost...  

[FartingMonk 3608]

1 hour ago, Grimas said:

I guess I missed you post with the "data". I guess the banks and private equity people I deal with daily missed your posts as well... I apologize for all of us in advance...

My last comment I'm gonna make on this thread as this isn't the CR but didnt you post 2-3 years ago that you spent 15k on a $30k solar system for your house with the subsidies and discounts covering the other half you didn't have to pay? Not that I have anything against taking advantage of anything available but would you have still bought/leased the system without the subsidies/discounts? Looks more attractive when someone else is footing half the total cost...  

A poster on energy who speaks on demand energy.  Tax credits.  Say carbon credits for the trifecta.  You truly know what you are talking about.  I'm not saying that wind and solar isn't needed for our future but the tax credits are what big banks like when they know that loan is basically guaranteed to these fly by night operations who are carbon credit miners.  People like to talk grid being overloaded by demand.  It's also really bad when it's overloaded by supply.  That's why the NERC guys aren't fans of renewables right now.  Those windfarms out of Corpus can blow for 3 hours and then just drop off without warning.  Now you have to make up for that lost.  Gas plant does a ramp to make up for it.  Only for the wind plants to pick back up an hour later.

 

[Dahobbs 17682]

4 hours ago, Grimas said:

I guess I missed you post with the "data". I guess the banks and private equity people I deal with daily missed your posts as well... I apologize for all of us in advance...

My last comment I'm gonna make on this thread as this isn't the CR but didnt you post 2-3 years ago that you spent 15k on a $30k solar system for your house with the subsidies and discounts covering the other half you didn't have to pay? Not that I have anything against taking advantage of anything available but would you have still bought/leased the system without the subsidies/discounts? Looks more attractive when someone else is footing half the total cost...  

The LCOE information was linked on the same page as your post. I've quoted it again below. Utility scale solar LCOE without subsidies, is $36.09 per mWh, combined cycle is $37.05.  I also provided links regarding actual capacity being built and analysis from Deloitte. It all has the same conclusion: solar is cheaper than gas. I don't know what banks and private equity your dealing with (or to what end). But apparently it's not the ones actually funding the build out of new capacity, the vast majority of which is renewables. 

As to my person system, rooftop residential solar has a completely different cost profile and is a lot more expensive per mWh. But it isn't really relevant to this thread when we are talking about power plants. My personal system was more like 20k for a 30k system after tax credits. No subsidies would drag the payback period to around 15 years. Still doable, but definitely less financially attractive. Again, not really relevant to what we are talking about. 

18 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I've posted this many times, but I'll do it again:

Based on LCOE in the United States, with or without renewable subsidies (but including all indirect subsidies for fossil fuels), solar is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Onshore wind is roughly even with combined cycle and cheaper than other fossil fuel options. Of course, this is a March 2022 report and doesn't include recent price hikes in natural gas. I do note that the addition of storage will drive solar to be higher than combined cycle in this estimate. However, storage is largely unnecessary until reaching higher percentages of renewables on the grid (and there are plenty of studies on that if you need cites). Notably, battery storage systems are quickly reaching price parity with combustion turbines, which is a pretty big deal since they largely serve the same purpose in the grid.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Keep in mind, the EIA estimates for new renewable generation have been notoriously low-balled, with actual generation doing better than these predictions pretty much every year. There is a reason that something like 80% of new planned capacity in Texas is renewable (mainly solar), and you see a similar pattern nationally. It is economics. 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17682]

9 hours ago, Grimas said:

Drop subsidies out of all - oil/gas/

Dropping all oil and gas subsidies would also require accounting for the currently external costs of climate change caused by the release of greenhouse gases. Numerous studies have addressed the costs involved here. Factoring those back into oil and gas would make renewables plus battery storage look cheap. 

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds

Quote

 

Coal, oil, and natural gas received $5.9 trillion in subsidies in 2020 — or roughly $11 million every minute — according to a new analysis from the International Monetary Fund.

Explicit subsidies accounted for only 8 percent of the total. The remaining 92 percent were implicit subsidies, which took the form of tax breaks or, to a much larger degree, health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels, according to the analysis

 

.

[gmr548 16616]

20 hours ago, Foosters said:

Damn bro, show us where the wind and sun touched you

18 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

That's because y'all CR simpleton dildo's

 

This is absolutely hysterical given that this entire discussion started with literally the first second comment in the thread being a desperate, clumsy attempt to CR it, from someone who later said they didn't want to get "cloaky."

Edited June 17, 2022 by gmr548

[VRHorn 718]

31 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

This is absolutely hysterical given that this entire discussion started with literally the first second comment in the thread being a desperate, clumsy attempt to CR it, from someone who later said they didn't want to get "cloaky."