Renewable Energy Saving Texas' Ass Right Now

[Chewbacca 7780]

2 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

When I said it’s insanely idiotic, it wasn’t about the veracity of your claim. It’s to express an opinion that it is in fact insanely idiotic. 

Gas is not a buggy. Lol. 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're an O&G guy?  Just a hunch...

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Fine it's a newspaper.

Worse. Buggy is probably more apt and it’s a bad descriptor. Print media was quickly and easily displaced because the cost to replace infrastructure there was zero barrier to entry. And there is a major major consumer cost increase (not limited to commercial electricity, dahobbs) not seen with a consumer simply switching from print to web-based media. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Within the next 50 years, fossil fuels will make up less than 20% of our electrical generation and transportation fuels. That <20% will probably be things like gas peaker plants and fuel for large and/or high performance aircraft. Oil will still be extremely valuable for the creation of petroleum products. 

Disagreed on both. Vehemently on transpo. 

54 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're an O&G guy?  Just a hunch...

Well you know that, so….

[Dahobbs 17534]

4 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Disagreed on both. Vehemently on transpo. 

Great. See you in 50 years. Actually, I'm betting I'll win this sooner on the electrical generation side of things, maybe 15-20 years. Other countries have reached similar metrics. No particular reason we can't. 

[YGIFS 19450]

I think of Phillip Seymour Hoffman in "Almost Famous" telling the kid about being there for the death rattle of rock 'n roll.  We're heading towards an even more diversified energy portfolio mix both in terms of the generation and the end-use products.  Nobody is denying that.  Just a matter of time and scale.  But those firmly entrenched in hydrocarbons, there's another 25 years left in that.  Those that are starting just now to get entrenched in renewables, it's a 25 year runway to the top.  Nobody is going out of business because of this.  We're not at the thing yet, but we are the thing that gets us to the thing.  

We still tool around in O&G.  We are now tooling around in off-shore wind-farms.  Just a small sliver of what's possible.  I sat in the Hummer EV Pickup that GMC gave my friend for a few days to write up his thoughts as a journalist.  And he told me about his next book on battery storage.  It's all anecdotal, sure.  But it blew my mind.  Decades away but we're on our way.  If we could harness the power of the sun in a device no larger than a steamer case 80 years ago, we can certainly capture its power for a night while we sleep in just a few more.  I like this pissing match competition, means we're on to something bigger.  We sure as shit ain't gonna hydroelectric out way outta this mess.

Edited February 2, 2023 by YGIFS

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Great. See you in 50 years. Actually, I'm betting I'll win this sooner on the electrical generation side of things, maybe 15-20 years. Other countries have reached similar metrics. No particular reason we can't. 

Nobody else has the resources and O&G resources / industry dynamics we do. I’ll bet you $10,000 it won’t happen in 50 years with transpo. And if it does, it won’t matter for gas demand.  

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

Nobody else has the resources and O&G resources / industry dynamics we do. I’ll bet you $10,000 it won’t happen in 50 years with transpo. And if it does, it won’t matter for gas demand.  

O&G companies are going to be part of the group responsible for the transformation. You're right, O&G companies have the money right now. And the smart ones can see where the money is going to be, which is why they are actively rebranding themselves as energy companies. 

As for transport, I'm referring to consumer and commercial transportation. In 50 years, there aren't going to be many consumer vehicles that run on gas except maybe some toys like classic cars. Commercial transport is going to be a bit trickier. Short-haul stuff like last mile delivery vehicles are being converted now and are ideal for electrification. Long-haul transport should follow, but it'll be a longer time frame before we see complete conversion. I still think 50 years is doable there. Aircraft, marine shipping, and extremely heavy duty equipment will be the last to convert. We'll need a revolution in battery technology to make large or high performance aircraft feasible. 

I also don't really know what you mean by it not mattering for gas demand. Do you mean in terms of tons used or price? Certainly there will be a continued growing demand for petrochemicals. So in that sense I agree. But there will be a lessened demand for oil & gas as fuels, which will change market dynamics. Whether that combination results in lower prices, I can't really guess. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Celery Man 20959]

$10k in 50 years from now dollars is a pretty weak bet for dudes who will probably be dead

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

O&G companies are going to be part of the group responsible for the transformation. You're right, O&G companies have the money right now. And the smart ones can see where the money is going to be, which is why they are actively rebranding themselves as energy companies. 

As for transport, I'm referring to consumer and commercial transportation. In 50 years, there aren't going to be many consumer vehicles that run on gas except maybe some toys like classic cars. Commercial transport is going to be a bit trickier. Short-haul stuff like last mile delivery vehicles are being converted now and are ideal for electrification. Long-haul transport should follow, but it'll be a longer time frame before we see complete conversion. I still think 50 years is doable there. Aircraft, marine shipping, and extremely heavy duty equipment will be the last to convert. We'll need a revolution in battery technology to make large or high performance aircraft feasible. 

I also don't really know what you mean by it not mattering for gas demand. Do you mean in terms of tons used or price? Certainly there will be a continued growing demand for petrochemicals. So in that sense I agree. But there will be a lessened demand for oil & gas as fuels, which will change market dynamics. Whether that combination results in lower prices, I can't really guess. 

I'll take a guess and based on the o/g profits coming in last year, they'll find a way to not lower prices even if demand wanes. Hell, they'll probably go up.

[Dahobbs 17534]

6 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

$10k in 50 years from now dollars is a pretty weak bet for dudes who will probably be dead

Yeah, but if I'm alive, it'll pay for a burger at Whata-McDonald's Taco Bell and Popeye's House of Pancakes. 

[Eastwood 4394]

35 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I'll take a guess and based on the o/g profits coming in last year, they'll find a way to not lower prices even if demand wanes. Hell, they'll probably go up.

It’s a capital intensive endeavor and not all basins/assets are created equal. As prices increase, exploration fires up in areas with higher breakeven prices, supply goes up until it meets demand. Then demand wanes, prices go down, exploration wanes, supply wanes, and the bottom falls out. The industry takes about 6 months to respond to increases in demand, but about only 2 months to respond to decreases in demand. That’s why it is a boom/bust business. Everyone chases the high prices, produces themselves out of business, the healthiest companies devour the smaller, rinse and repeat until the final bust in 2063 or whenever. 
 

Saying that oil companies are jacking up prices never made sense. Their product is an openly traded commodity. They get paid based on the market indicies tied to their midstream contracts. They scored huge profit because the market dictated that the price of their product was very high in 2022. They’re not barreling oil and placing it on store shelves like it’s Coca Cola. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Politics has infected everything, a thread.  

[PTINS 3472]

19 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

To augment what Dahobbs wrote, here is data from energy.gov

Lot of coal being retired.

Share of renewables is rising.

More cars are going electric.

Battery storage capacity is going to increase a lot.

 

What’s the top source of electricity in your state?

 

First, generally

Hydro > Wind> Solar> Gas > Petroleum > Coal ; Nuclear is in a class by itself...

Ok, but for 24/7 power generation, Hydro is good, wind & solar need not apply.

The evolution of Coal to Gas to Renewables will be a long process, with Coal to Gas in about the 2 or 3rd inning. Just, within the US, there are widespread areas where Coal fired power generation is dominant. The main reason is coal power generation is proximate to coal reserves. Secondarily, limited gas infrastructure has hampered meaningful growth. 

Please note Colorado's primary source.  In those coal states, as a 24/7 source, gas needs to replace coal as a first step.

Worldwide, coal-fired power generation is by far the dominant source. Regardless of what the US does, if gas (nuclear) doesn't start displacing coal worldwide, it doesn't really matter. 

Yes, Coal is being retired. A lot? ok, how much is a lot? Yes plants are being retired, but not enough to move the needle.

Growth in electric cars? Yes it will come. The average price point needs to come way down for the average consumer.

9 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The economics and entities with money to invest in new plants disagree with you. ... since renewables don't operate anywhere near capacity on a regular basis.... , particularly if what is being built is gas-peaker plants. What is clear is that coal isn't anywhere on new build list and instead features prominently on the retirement list. 

Agree, no one is building new coal plants.

"Entities with money":  New renewables go to the front of the line and can produce at 100%. If there is a need for incremental demand, only then can new gas fired plants come on line as a peak shaving plant.  That inherent unfairness kinda distorts the economics, doesn't it?

8 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

 Pulling shit out of the ground and burning it will eventually go the way of the dinosaur, no matter how many of you O&G shitheads kick and scream and cry about it. 

So, dinosaurs lived ~ 100 million years, human ~ 200,000 years. We still have a ways to go. If, and when, we have reliable 24/7 alternatives to oil & gas and all their derivatives, O&G will go the way of the dinosaur.  We just need a way to make plastics. and a bunch of other products without hydrocarbons.  

7 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

Fossil fuels are largely responsible for our progress as a civilization over the last 150 years or so. However, I do take issue with O&G blowhards that want to act like O&G is here to stay and why bother trying to phase out/replace what we can as renewables progress. I get it, your livelihood is threatened but it's inevitable so I laugh and mock the fucktards that want to act like they're Rockefeller and proclaim the world will forever be lost without them. O&G will be but a footnote in our history.

Queue Red Foreman.  Think you can go 7 days without using a petroleum product?  Renewables have their place and are an important part of the matrix, but they are not a 100% reliable 24/7 fuel. Not anywhere close. 

By the way, you do know that oil production saved the whales, don't you? Eliminated the need for whale oil in lamps.

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Within the next 50 years, fossil fuels will make up less than 20% of our electrical generation and transportation fuels. That <20% will probably be things like gas peaker plants and fuel for large and/or high performance aircraft. Oil will still be extremely valuable for the creation of petroleum products. 

I doubt this.  Where is the power generation coming from at night when the wind isn't blowing?

The Amoco (BP) Texas City refinery was built in 1934. They focused on making transportation fuels, as they did not see an alternative to that in the foreseeable future, ~ 50 years.  Make that ~ 100+ years. Other than rubber bands(?), there has not been a viable alternative as it relates to aircraft transportation.  What is your solution?  Who is paying for all the electric fueling stations between I-35 and the west coast, and the power lines to serve them?

Generally, oil makes gasoline, distillates (diesel & fuel oil), lubricants, and asphalt.

Natural Gas Liquids, seperated from gas, are the preferred feedstock for chemical plants to make plastics. 

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

As for transport, I'm referring to consumer and commercial transportation. In 50 years, there aren't going to be many consumer vehicles that run on gas except maybe some toys like classic cars. Commercial transport is going to be a bit trickier. Short-haul stuff like last mile delivery vehicles are being converted now and are ideal for electrification. Long-haul transport should follow, but it'll be a longer time frame before we see complete conversion. I still think 50 years is doable there. Aircraft, marine shipping, and extremely heavy duty equipment will be the last to convert. We'll need a revolution in battery technology to make large or high performance aircraft feasible. 

I also don't really know what you mean by it not mattering for gas demand. Do you mean in terms of tons used or price? Certainly there will be a continued growing demand for petrochemicals. So in that sense I agree. But there will be a lessened demand for oil & gas as fuels, which will change market dynamics. Whether that combination results in lower prices, I can't really guess. 

You recognize the need for oil & gas derivatives, but not to use them as transportation fuels, or as a power generation fuel.  If you can't do without the derivatives, you can't do without the primary source.

100% of NGL are consumed, with an ever growing worldwide demand. The only country with the necessary gas supply and the NGL infrastructure to matter in a meaningful way is the US. THE US IS THE ONLY COUNTRY. What are you going to do with the natural gas, once you've removed the NGLs? Flare it? What are going to do with the cleanest, most abundant naturally occuring compound known to mankind? 

[PTINS 3472]

Speaking of renewables...

The costs of solar panels has come down, in part, because plastics (hydrocarbons) replaced the glass or metal.

Know what they do with retired windmill blades? Nothing. They have no use and are buried. They are primarily made from fiberglass, which is not biodegradable.

[Dahobbs 17534]

14 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Ok, but for 24/7 power generation, Hydro is good, wind & solar need not apply.

There is no reason a plant needs to produce 24/7. Hell, no fossil fuel plant has 100% uptime. 

Quote

The evolution of Coal to Gas to Renewables will be a long process, with Coal to Gas in about the 2 or 3rd inning. Just, within the US, there are widespread areas where Coal fired power generation is dominant. The main reason is coal power generation is proximate to coal reserves. Secondarily, limited gas infrastructure has hampered meaningful growth. 

? Gas has grown leaps and bounds, almost entirely at the expense of coal. Your chart focusing on states rather than total generations misleading. Sure, a bunch of states with minimal population and electric generation needs rely on coal. But nationwide, coal only supplies 21% of electricity, and that number is dropping fast. 10 years ago coal plants produced 37% of our electricity. For comparison over that same period, natural gas has gone from 30% to 39%. 

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01

Quote

Worldwide, coal-fired power generation is by far the dominant source. Regardless of what the US does, if gas (nuclear) doesn't start displacing coal worldwide, it doesn't really matter. 

This is a strange take. Gas isn't necessarily positioned to take over everywhere. Europe is switching heavily into renewables. And China is the dominant player in investing in renewables, positioning them to take over reliance on coal. 

Quote

Yes, Coal is being retired. A lot? ok, how much is a lot? Yes plants are being retired, but not enough to move the needle.? 

Are we talking worldwide or the US? Total generation from coal in the US has gone from 1.59 billion kwh in 2013 to less than 900 billion kwh today. Worldwide, coal is surging, particularly in developing economies and temporarily in Europe. It would certainly be better if that coal were instantly replaced in natural gas or renewables. But based on investments and supply chains, it is going to be renewables and not natural gas that eventually replace it. 

Quote

Growth in electric cars? Yes it will come. The average price point needs to come way down for the average consumer.

Sure, and that is occurring in the used market. A new electric car isn't that much more expensive than the average price of a new car in the US (partly due to the surge in prices the last few years). 

Quote

"Entities with money":  New renewables go to the front of the line and can produce at 100%. If there is a need for incremental demand, only then can new gas fired plants come on line as a peak shaving plant.  That inherent unfairness kinda distorts the economics, doesn't it?

I don't believe your assertion here is correct. But, setting that aside, it is cheaper to operate renewables (see LCOE data), so that would be the ideal economic result. A natural gas plant is more profitable as a peaker plant right now. 

Quote

So, dinosaurs lived ~ 100 million years, human ~ 200,000 years. We still have a ways to go. If, and when, we have reliable 24/7 alternatives to oil & gas and all their derivatives, O&G will go the way of the dinosaur.  We just need a way to make plastics. and a bunch of other products without hydrocarbons. 

Queue Red Foreman.  Think you can go 7 days without using a petroleum product?  Renewables have their place and are an important part of the matrix, but they are not a 100% reliable 24/7 fuel. Not anywhere close.  

I don't expect fossil fuels to disappear entirely.  Do expect their usage (as fuels) to significantly decrease. It can be cost effective for to have renewables power over a majority of the grid. It is the last 30 percent or so where the costs start to escalate due to need for overcapacity/ storage. Natural gas is a good fit for the remaining portion, and is perfectly fine there so long as we can combine with carbon capture to net out the associates carbon releases. 

Quote

I doubt this.  Where is the power generation coming from at night when the wind isn't blowing?

Your generators don't all need to be in the same place. It is statistically extremely unlikely that the wind will not be blowing over entire regions, much less than the entire country, especially since wind tends to do better at night. When there are shortfalls, they'd be covered by a combination of storage and natural gas. 

Quote

The Amoco (BP) Texas City refinery was built in 1934. They focused on making transportation fuels, as they did not see an alternative to that in the foreseeable future, ~ 50 years.  Make that ~ 100+ years. Other than rubber bands(?), there has not been a viable alternative as it relates to aircraft transportation.  What is your solution?  Who is paying for all the electric fueling stations between I-35 and the west coast, and the power lines to serve them?

I have no idea what this paragraph is supposed to mean. I already said I thought it was unlikely that fossil fuels would be replaced in aircraft within that 50 years absent some revolution in battery technology. To be clear, I didn't say fossil fuel in transportation would go to 0. I said it would be 20% or less of our usage. That 20 percent is going to be things like aircraft and heavy machinery. 

Quote

You recognize the need for oil & gas derivatives, but not to use them as transportation fuels, or as a power generation fuel.  If you can't do without the derivatives, you can't do without the primary source.

I'm not against natural gas at all. I think it'll serve a vital part of energy infrastructure for a long time, and I think it can do so in an economically and environmentally responsible way. It just needs to be a much smaller portion of our energy use than fossil fuels currently are. 

Quote

100% of NGL are consumed, with an ever growing worldwide demand. The only country with the necessary gas supply and the NGL infrastructure to matter in a meaningful way is the US. THE US IS THE ONLY COUNTRY. What are you going to do with the natural gas, once you've removed the NGLs? Flare it? What are going to do with the cleanest, most abundant naturally occuring compound known to mankind

Gas not needed as a fuel should either be stored for future use or used as a feedstock for other products. Your last sentence is ridiculous hyperbole. And, if we are going to single out the "cleanest, most abundant naturally occurring compound," my answer is going to be water.  

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, PTINS said:

Know what they do with retired windmill blades? Nothing. They have no use and are buried. They are primarily made from fiberglass, which is not biodegradable.

Recycling is a developing market. 

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-makes-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support

https://blog.ucsusa.org/charlie-hoffs/what-happens-to-wind-turbine-blades-at-the-end-of-their-life-cycle/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recycled-wind-turbines-could-be-made-into-plexiglass-diapers-or-gummy-bears/

Edited February 3, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

O&G companies are going to be part of the group responsible for the transformation. You're right, O&G companies have the money right now. And the smart ones can see where the money is going to be, which is why they are actively rebranding themselves as energy companies. 

As for transport, I'm referring to consumer and commercial transportation. In 50 years, there aren't going to be many consumer vehicles that run on gas except maybe some toys like classic cars. Commercial transport is going to be a bit trickier. Short-haul stuff like last mile delivery vehicles are being converted now and are ideal for electrification. Long-haul transport should follow, but it'll be a longer time frame before we see complete conversion. I still think 50 years is doable there. Aircraft, marine shipping, and extremely heavy duty equipment will be the last to convert. We'll need a revolution in battery technology to make large or high performance aircraft feasible. 

I also don't really know what you mean by it not mattering for gas demand. Do you mean in terms of tons used or price? Certainly there will be a continued growing demand for petrochemicals. So in that sense I agree. But there will be a lessened demand for oil & gas as fuels, which will change market dynamics. Whether that combination results in lower prices, I can't really guess. 

20% or lower gasoline-powered Light duty transport vehicles (“LDTVs”) in the US within 50 years, particularly consumer vehicles, is a very very aggressive take, and I strongly disagree with you. My point on having no affect on gas demand is that if 80% or more LDTVs are electric, it will be a major major strain in electricity and gas will power a significantly increased grid. 

Smart O&G companies is relative to scale. Majors absolutely should invest heavily in renewables technologies. But private companies and even public independents absolutely should NOT and instead remain focused on producing what the market needs. 

I’ll dabble in renewables investment if it makes sense. It’s not nearly as economic as E&P or more specifically O&G royalties. 

23 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I'll take a guess and based on the o/g profits coming in last year, they'll find a way to not lower prices even if demand wanes. Hell, they'll probably go up.

What a fucking dumbass post. Tell me how much you don’t know about not only O&G industry but also general business. Go back to philosophy class bro. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Porterhouse

[Captainant 27676]

6 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

20% or lower gasoline-powered Light duty transport vehicles (“LDTVs”) in the US within 50 years

Counterpoint: we went from man's first flight to the first flight around the world in 20 years. The first man in space in 58 years. We had men on the moon 66 years after first flight.

 A LOT can and will change in 50 years, provided sufficient incentive. I'd bet the reduced maintenance cost from electric vehicles drives quite a bit more consumer interest as the technology advances 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Counterpoint: we went from man's first flight to the first flight around the world in 20 years. The first man in space in 58 years. We had men on the moon 66 years after first flight.

 A LOT can and will change in 50 years, provided sufficient incentive. I'd bet the reduced maintenance cost from electric vehicles drives quite a bit more consumer interest as the technology advances 

No doubt.  I certainly doubt it globally - particularly looking at India and China. And I doubt it here. But I could be wrong. This is one reason I’m about 50% weighted in nat gas.  Related, another reason I’m so surly these days. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

7 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

 

I’ll dabble in renewables investment if it makes sense. It’s not nearly as economic as E&P or more specifically O&G royalties. 

I don't think your personal investments are relevant or predictive. But Enphase, a major micro-inverter player, is up nearly 10,000% over the last 5 years. So, if it is high returns your after, you definitely should look into some renewable plays. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think your personal investments are relevant or predictive. But Enphase, a major micro-inverter player, is up nearly 10,000% over the last 5 years. So, if it is high returns your after, you definitely should look into some renewable plays. 

Thanks for the tip. But I’m pretty heavily weighted in royalties in addition to my day gig. We have made $18 million of acquisitions since 7/1/2020. It’s been very nice until recently. Still decent. Just made a distribution but I’m pretty tied up. I know it and believe in it but will probably advise my kids to get into commercial real estate or renewables. Seriously. I know I come across as a hardliner O&G guy but I’m not. I just believe in it. 

[AeroHorn 749]

11 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

20% or lower gasoline-powered Light duty transport vehicles (“LDTVs”) in the US within 50 years, particularly consumer vehicles, is a very very aggressive take, and I strongly disagree with you. My point on having no affect on gas demand is that if 80% or more LDTVs are electric, it will be a major major strain in electricity and gas will power a significantly increased grid. 

What? 20% in 50 years is aggressive? California is already at 18% now and will most likely reach near 100% by 2035 (12 years from now).  https://electrek.co/2022/10/27/electric-cars-reach-new-car-sales-california-compare-us/

Grid hasn't seen any extra burden because solar has kept up and the cars drive when the sun doesn't shine because they have batteries. I have solar and a pure electric + PIH car and haven't burdened PG&E in any way.

 

Edit: Norway is at 79% electric cars and will reach 100% in 2025 (less than 3 years from now) Norway – the EV capital of the world (visitnorway.com)

Edited February 4, 2023 by AeroHorn

[Guest]

9 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

What? 20% in 50 years is aggressive? California is already at 18% now and will most likely reach near 100% by 2035 (12 years from now).  https://electrek.co/2022/10/27/electric-cars-reach-new-car-sales-california-compare-us/

Grid hasn't seen any extra burden because solar has kept up and the cars drive when the sun doesn't shine because they have batteries. I have solar and a pure electric + PIH car and haven't burdened PG&E in any way.

 

Edit: Norway is at 79% electric cars and will reach 100% in 2025 (less than 3 years from now) Norway – the EV capital of the world (visitnorway.com)

Follow the argument and read what I wrote again. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

New report from the US Energy Information Administration on expectations for 2023, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55419.

I've quoted the article below, but tldr summary: 54.5 GW of new utility-scale electric generating capacity to be added in 2023. And Texas is leading the charge with renewables again.

• 29.1 GW of solar (7.7 GW in Texas);
• 9.4 GW of battery storage (71% in Cal and Texas);
• 7.5 GW of natural-gas (83% combined cycle);
• 6.0 GW of wind (2 GW in Texas);
• 2.2 GW of nuclear.

That means solar+wind+battery storage+nuclear is over 85% of the planned new capacity to come online this year.  If you take battery storage completely out of the denominator and the numerator, you're looking at solar+wind+nuclear being nearly 83% of planned new capacity. That is entirely consistent with the figures I provided @Porterhouse earlier in the thread. 

Oh, and no new coal, with 9 GW of coal power being retired this year (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/us-will-see-more-new-battery-capacity-than-natural-gas-generation-in-2023/)

Quote

 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023

More than half of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2023 will be solar

Developers plan to add 54.5 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric-generating capacity to the U.S. power grid in 2023, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. More than half of this capacity will be solar power (54%), followed by battery storage (17%).

Solar. U.S. utility-scale solar capacity has been rising rapidly since 2010. Despite its upward trend over the past decade, additions of utility-scale solar capacity declined by 23% in 2022 compared with 2021. This drop in solar capacity additions was the result of supply chain disruptions and other pandemic-related challenges. We expect that some of those delayed 2022 projects will begin operating in 2023, when developers plan to install 29.1 GW of solar power in the United States. If all of this capacity comes online as planned, 2023 will have the most new utility-scale solar capacity added in a single year, more than doubling the current record (13.4 GW in 2021).

In 2023, the most new solar capacity, by far, will be in Texas (7.7 GW) and California (4.2 GW), together accounting for 41% of planned new solar capacity.

Battery storage. U.S. battery storage capacity has grown rapidly over the past couple of years. In 2023, U.S. battery capacity will likely more than double. Developers have reported plans to add 9.4 GW of battery storage to the existing 8.8 GW of battery storage capacity.

Battery storage systems are increasingly installed with wind and solar power projects. Wind and solar are intermittent sources of generation; they only produce electricity when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Batteries can store excess electricity from wind and solar generators for later use. In 2023, we expect 71% of the new battery storage capacity will be in California and Texas, states with significant solar and wind capacity.

Natural gas. Developers plan to build 7.5 GW of new natural-gas fired capacity in 2023, 83% of which is from combined-cycle plants. The two largest natural gas plants expected to come online in 2023 are the 1,836 megawatt (MW) Guernsey Power Station in Ohio and the 1,214 MW CPV Three Rivers Energy Center in Illinois.

Wind. In 2023, developers plan to add 6.0 GW of utility-scale wind capacity. Annual U.S. wind capacity additions have begun to slow, following record additions of more than 14 GW in both 2020 and 2021.

The most wind capacity will be added in Texas in 2023, at 2.0 GW. The only offshore wind capacity expected to come online this year is a 130.0 MW offshore windfarm in New York called South Fork Wind.

Nuclear. Two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia are scheduled to come online in 2023, several years later than originally planned. The reactors, with a combined 2.2 GW of capacity, are the first new nuclear units built in the United States in more than 30 years.

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.

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

On 2/2/2023 at 9:47 PM, PTINS said:

Ok, but for 24/7 power generation, Hydro is good, wind & solar need not apply.

* * *

Please note Colorado's primary source.  In those coal states, as a 24/7 source, gas needs to replace coal as a first step.

I wanted to comeback and touch on this 24/7 power generation idea. Here are the capacity factors from the EIA:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a (fossil fuels)

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b (other)

A few highlights from 2021:

• CC-NG =55.0%
• GT-NC = 11.7%
• Coal = 49.1%
• Geothermal = 69.8%
• Hydro = 34.0%
• Nuclear = 92.7%
• Solar = 24.4%
• Wind = 34.4%

As you can see, other than nuclear, nothing comes close to 24/7 up time. 

[Pato del Muerto 52501]

Which is why storage advancements are as important as generation. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I wanted to comeback and touch on this 24/7 power generation idea. Here are the capacity factors from the EIA:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a (fossil fuels)

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b (other)

A few highlights from 2021:

• CC-NG =55.0%
• GT-NC = 11.7%
• Coal = 49.1%
• Geothermal = 69.8%
• Hydro = 34.0%
• Nuclear = 92.7%
• Solar = 24.4%
• Wind = 34.4%

As you can see, other than nuclear, nothing comes close to 24/7 up time. 

Side note, I do realize that capacity doesn't directly correlate with time of use. It is just the closest proxy I have. 

[elfenix 34243]

Quote

A Danish wind turbine giant just discovered how to recycle all blades

https://electrek.co/2023/02/08/wind-turbine-recycle-blades/

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I wanted to comeback and touch on this 24/7 power generation idea. Here are the capacity factors from the EIA:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a (fossil fuels)

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b (other)

A few highlights from 2021:

• CC-NG =55.0%
• GT-NC = 11.7%
• Coal = 49.1%
• Geothermal = 69.8%
• Hydro = 34.0%
• Nuclear = 92.7%
• Solar = 24.4%
• Wind = 34.4%

As you can see, other than nuclear, nothing comes close to 24/7 up time. 

Availability would be the better metric to use for potential up time comparisons.  Gas and coal plants often have availability factors of 85% to over 90%.  The reason the capacity factors listed on the linked tables is lower is due to economic reasons, not energy source limitations.  Wind and solar have energy availability factors of 25-40% (offshore wind can be a bit higher). 

It's easy to design a grid based on thermal power plants with close to 24/7 up time.  It's virtually impossible to achieve 24/7 up time on a grid based on wind and solar power without lots of energy storage, increase/improvement in energy transmission systems, synchronous condensers to balance reactive power, etc.  Which is all possible.  But if we want to take thermal plants offline for good and maintain grid stability, we need to do a lot more than just add solar and wind capacity.  Thermal plants provide things for the grid that wind & solar plants alone do not.       

[Dahobbs 17534]

8 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Availability would be the better metric to use for potential up time comparisons.  Gas and coal plants often have availability factors of 85% to over 90%.  The reason the capacity factors listed on the linked tables is lower is due to economic reasons, not energy source limitations.  Wind and solar have energy availability factors of 25-40% (offshore wind can be a bit higher). 

It's easy to design a grid based on thermal power plants with close to 24/7 up time.  It's virtually impossible to achieve 24/7 up time on a grid based on wind and solar power without lots of energy storage, increase/improvement in energy transmission systems, synchronous condensers to balance reactive power, etc.  Which is all possible.  But if we want to take thermal plants offline for good and maintain grid stability, we need to do a lot more than just add solar and wind capacity.  Thermal plants provide things for the grid that wind & solar plants alone do not.       

I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't have a thermal plant up at a higher percentage. I'm just pointing out that we don't, and yet the grid doesn't come crashing down. Yes, there is flexibility with a thermal plant not found with renewables sans storage. But having a plant operating near 24/7 is not a requirement for our grid and never has been. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't mean to suggest that you couldn't have a thermal plant up at a higher percentage. I'm just pointing out that we don't, and yet the grid doesn't come crashing down. Yes, there is flexibility with a thermal plant not found with renewables sans storage. But having a plant operating near 24/7 is not a requirement for our grid and never has been. 

Agreed, we don't need plants to operate near 24/7, but we do need sufficient combined plant availability coverage to have a stable and reliable grid, which is easy to achieve with thermal plants.  For a grid based on wind and solar plants we would need to have something like 3-4x nameplate capacity over average grid consumption plus the other things I listed above to have a stable grid.  Hence all the IRA incentives to make this a reality.  

[DougO 5249]

On 2/2/2023 at 3:49 PM, Celery Man said:

$10k in 50 years from now dollars is a pretty weak bet for dudes who will probably be dead

And it will be about the price of a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs.

[PTINS 3472]

18 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I wanted to comeback and touch on this 24/7 power generation idea. Here are the capacity factors from the EIA:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a (fossil fuels)

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b (other)

A few highlights from 2021:

• CC-NG =55.0%
• GT-NC = 11.7%
• Coal = 49.1%
• Geothermal = 69.8%
• Hydro = 34.0%
• Nuclear = 92.7%
• Solar = 24.4%
• Wind = 34.4%

As you can see, other than nuclear, nothing comes close to 24/7 up time. 

These annualized statistics might be 100% accurate, but the results yield a meaningless metric.  I recognize the discrete data is not readily available.

The EIA numbers above just note the actual power produced over the year v. the rated capacity over the year. For CC-NG, this means the plants ran the equivalent of 100% capacity for 55% of the year to meet electrical demand for the entire year. That does not mean the plants were shut down and idle for 45% of the time. 

The reality is most gas fired power plants are "turning to right" and generating power 24/7 for 350+ days a year. The daily demand profile implies they need to run at capacity (~75 GW demand) for 6-10 hrs/day during peak daylight hours, and something less than capacity during off-peak hours (~ 50-60 GW demand). Similarly, they need to run at higher production rates in the summer v. the winter. The plants are still running 24/7, and flexing from 40-100% capacity during the each day throughout the year, as dictated by demand. The variability makes fossil fired generation the prefered swing power generation source.  

When I say 24/7, I mean on online and producing power 24 hours a day/ seven days a week, regardless if the plant is at 40% power or 100% power.

The variable is the demand for power, not the availability of power generation.  Fossil plants are able to flex from 40% capacity to 100% capacity within hours according to demand. Nukes have that availability, but it is not practical to cycle them throughout the day. Renewables produce according to the weather, they do not have that on/off availability, regardless of demand for power.

IN 2021, everything went wrong. The entire state having record cold at the same time for a really long time.  Freezing and failing power generation and distribution systems reduced power availability, with the necessity for discriminate load shedding, which included shutting off power to gas processing plants, which further reduced gas production, which reduced gas fired power generation, etc., cascading to a big pile of ...

Winterizing gas processing plants? They are already built that way, with heat tracing and insulation on susceptible equipment, pipes and valves. Gas processing plants, with 100's of millions of Ft3 of gas per day going through them, are dependent on purchased power, including the electric power for heat tracing. When the power was cut by ERCOT, gas processing plants, like most of Austin, were shut down, and froze. It's ironic that the plants are not designed to be shut down in a cold state for prolonged periods of time. Nobody talks about prioritizing natural gas assets to a hospital level hierarchy, but they are a critical piece of the gas supply chain.       

[Hornius Emeritus 12462]

Solar electricity is now the cheapest form of electricity in history.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/?utm_content=buffer192a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[gmr548 16580]

Solar electricity is now the cheapest form of electricity in history.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/?utm_content=buffer192a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Hard to beat the fireball in the sky

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

 

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

now

written 10-13-2020

[YGIFS 19450]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Hard to beat the fireball in the sky

Yes, but for 4 minutes next year...the fireball will be eclipsed right through the heart of Texas, thus crippling our energy grid because of our renewable reliance.  

That's why I must ask brother, have you a moment to talk about Texas A&M's greatest feat of engineering, LUNAR PANELS.  The sun goes away at night, taken away perhaps by a man in a chariot named Hyperion.  We simply don't know everything yet.  However, we know that when it's dark...there's often a moon in the sky that we can harness the energy of.  There are even days where you can see the moon while the sun is still out, and we will pass those double savings on to you. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12462]

We are headed to zero marginal cost renewable energy by 2030 or so. Maybe earlier. Solar, wind and --- importantly --- battery storage are about to strand a lot of fossil fuel and ICE assets. Tony Seba and J.B.  Straubel were way ahead of everyone on predicting these exponential cost curve declines and the transformational implications. Kathie Wood at ARK invest built her firm around the theory. There will be some disruptive pain but a lof the world's ills will be greatly remediated ---- assuming the AI Overlords allow it.  😁

[YGIFS 19450]

Pos rep for Tony Seba.  I had been listening to conference keynotes talk about renewables and disruption to how we design cities 'n shit.  But he blew the room away a few years back when I saw him.  It's not just renewable versus hydrocarbon.  It's how costs reach net zero on solar, wind just has to get cheaper, natural gas has to be less volatile in pricing, and then storage.  

And then the neat part comes, you just start slinging people around in driverless cars or dirt-cheap rideshares (with next to no emissions).  It changes our need for more lanes and parking garages.  So that in turn changes how we design and add development to CBD's.  The literal way in which we use physical space in our cities changes completely.  I know the old adage, "Texans love their trucks/cars."  It's bullshit for most of us.  If you're that in love with a depreciating asset that costs that much to maintain and power, you're dumb.  I get there's a need for work trucks and ranch and hunting and all that, but I don't need a 6000 pound truck to drive to work or a game or school.  But I can't afford to have an electric car and a truck.  But if I can one day just dial up a solar charged car for my daily commutes and keep some gas guzzler for projects and 'n shit, I'm gonna do it.  Plus, I fucking hate, hate, hate parking.  Anyway, Tony closed with, "I wonder who'll be dumb enough to build the last parking garage in America?"  4 years later, we delivered the Hyatt Centric.  The tallest hotel in Texas with absolutely zero on-site parking.

[Armybrat 40850]

Oh, the Hyatt Centric that had to contract with a next door parking garage so the hotel could offer valet parking?

https://www.hyatt.com/hyatt-centric/ausct-hyatt-centric-congress-avenue-austin/hotel-info/parking-and-transportation

(yeah, I know…. It’s obviously a temporary need)

[Hornius Emeritus 12462]

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Pos rep for Tony Seba.  I had been listening to conference keynotes talk about renewables and disruption to how we design cities 'n shit.  But he blew the room away a few years back when I saw him.  It's not just renewable versus hydrocarbon.  It's how costs reach net zero on solar, wind just has to get cheaper, natural gas has to be less volatile in pricing, and then storage.  

And then the neat part comes, you just start slinging people around in driverless cars or dirt-cheap rideshares (with next to no emissions).  It changes our need for more lanes and parking garages.  So that in turn changes how we design and add development to CBD's.  The literal way in which we use physical space in our cities changes completely.  I know the old adage, "Texans love their trucks/cars."  It's bullshit for most of us.  If you're that in love with a depreciating asset that costs that much to maintain and power, you're dumb.  I get there's a need for work trucks and ranch and hunting and all that, but I don't need a 6000 pound truck to drive to work or a game or school.  But I can't afford to have an electric car and a truck.  But if I can one day just dial up a solar charged car for my daily commutes and keep some gas guzzler for projects and 'n shit, I'm gonna do it.  Plus, I fucking hate, hate, hate parking.  Anyway, Tony closed with, "I wonder who'll be dumb enough to build the last parking garage in America?"  4 years later, we delivered the Hyatt Centric.  The tallest hotel in Texas with absolutely zero on-site parking.

Yup. Those driverless cars will be like a subscription service. Think about how much your car is just sitting in your driveway or otherwise not being driven. I'm in my car probably 5% of my waking hours.  We could probably get away with 10% as many cars as we have currently.

[YGIFS 19450]

waiting on a variance correction that was delayed due to Covid construction delays.  The carve-out on the street for more linear feet for rideshare is coming.  

But think of hotels with above-ground, below ground in urban centers.  And ones that have adjacent parking garages that may be across the street are next door but are part of the same trac.  It's commonplace in northern cities but not in Texas.  But the change is coming.   

to bring it back to energy.  We do this right, we get to autonomous rideshare around for commutes and bullshit and events.  Keep a gas guzzler for projects and camping and road-trips.  And we pay for the delta with zero'd solar panels on our home and get off the shitheap grid we call ERCOT.  5 years ago, I wouldn't think it.  But 5 years ago, I didn't think Hyatt would want a car-less hotel in a place not called Manhattan.  Pritzkers know their shit. 

[elfenix 34243]

19 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Yup. Those driverless cars will be like a subscription service. Think about how much your car is just sitting in your driveway or otherwise not being driven. I'm in my car probably 5% of my waking hours.  We could probably get away with 10% as many cars as we have currently.

yes but then you wouldn't have the opportunity to sink $1,800 per month into your truck in payment, gas, and insurance or have 25% of your homestead dedicated to moving your truck on and off the property. 

[elfenix 34243]

Big gravity battery installation being built out near Snyder

https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/hundreds-of-these-24-ton-bricks-could-change-how-we-use-renewable-energy/

[Post Oak 20214]

 

 

 

The VPP stuff is fascinating to me. It seems like it makes a lot of sense so of course we wont do it. 

Open in app or online House Call: An Opportunity to Improve Grid Reliability in Texas The Texas House has a chance to make a major difference in the next two weeks

Spoiler

SHARE

As the clock ticks down on this year’s session, the Texas Legislature is on the threshold of making game-changing decisions to improve — or not to improve — grid reliability in the state. 

The Senate has a very checkered record on energy bills this year — but it also has, to its credit, passed a bipartisan trio of praiseworthy bills focused on energy efficiency (SB 258), demand response (SB 114), and distributed energy resources (or DERs; SB 2112). 

Now, the ball is in the House's court. It has just more than two weeks to pass these critical bills.

Upgrade to paid

The need for the bills has never been clearer. Even in their deeply problematic and misleading press conference last week, ERCOT CEO Pablo Vegas and PUC Chair Peter Lake talked about addressing the grid’s supply and demand challenges. The Independent Market Monitor, meanwhile, points to the lack of operational flexibility as the state’s main challenge. 

Either way, solutions like efficiency, demand response and DERs provide a cost-effective, speedy way to bolster flexibility and improve grid reliability. No matter how you look at it, the demand side must be part of the solution.

I’ll write in coming days about efficiency and demand response. Today, let’s focus on DERs.

Virtual Power Plants, Real Reliability

Virtual power plants (VPPs) are visible examples of how to deploy DERs to enhance grid reliability and resilience. They aren’t actually power plants; these DER deployment models simply aggregate small power sources, such as groups of solar panels and batteries, to create a combined electricity capacity equal to large power plants.

Share

And they could be a goldmine. A recent report by the Brattle Group, an energy consulting firm, showed that VPPs could save the country a whopping $15 - $35 billion in power plants we wouldn’t need to build. 

Focusing only on utility system costs and benefits, and ignoring societal benefits (i.e., emissions, resilience), the VPP could provide resource adequacy at a net utility system cost that is only roughly 40% of the net cost of a gas peaker, and 60% of the net cost of a battery.

But to achieve these savings, we need to significantly scale up the deployment of VPPs — to 60,000 megawatts in the U.S., with approximately 6,000–7,000 megawatts in ERCOT.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas last year approved an 80 megawatt VPP pilot. It’s a good start, but we need nearly 100 times as much to get the full economic and reliability benefits of VPPs. 

The chart below shows the benefits of VPPs compared to stand-alone gas and battery resources. But even setting those aside, VPPs still save money. 

This chart demonstrates how quickly Texas’ grid is changing. It shows that distributed, decentralized resources are coming, and Texans will get a lot of benefits — and save a lot of money — from them. 

A Resiliency Fund

Senate Bill 2112 would accelerate the process by establishing the Texas Power Resiliency Fund. The fund would provide grants to critical public safety and health facilities — such as fire and police stations, hospitals, and nursing homes — to help them develop and plug into standard VPP (or microgrid) packages. 

These DER systems will protect the facilities from all kinds of outages, whether on the bulk power grid (when power plants go out) or local distribution systems (when a tree limb falls on a power line, like the outages in Central Texas last February). They’ll also ensure that the facilities remain operational during outages, which will allow utilities to share the pain — and the electricity — more fairly by managing rolling blackouts more equitably.

Share The Texas Energy and Power Newsletter

During Uri, many communities and people went without power for several days in a row; others, on the same circuits as critical facilities, never lost power. As we know too well, concentrating blackouts on relatively few communities can quickly turn deadly. 

But by protecting hospitals and fire and police stations with on-site power, all circuits can be included in rolling blackout plans, and outages would be shorter because they’d actually rotate. 

In this, DERs can save lives. They’ll also help Texas get out of the bottom-10 among all states for the number of local outages. Make no mistake, Texas still has a ton of work to fix its bulk power system problems, but local sources of power can help with both local and bulk system problems. One without the other is imcomplete.

Unfortunately, this bill has yet to be scheduled for a hearing in the House. But there’s still time. The Texas House needs to pass Senate Bill 2112 and increase the state’s commitment to reliability by adding distributed energy resources.

 

 

Here's some more info on VPPs

 

What Are Virtual Power Plants (VPPs)?

Distributed energy resources (DERs) such as electric vehicles, smart thermostats, solar photovoltaic panels, heat pumps, and battery energy storage systems are seeing record-setting levels of investment and adoption. And their fast-growing strength in numbers can do even more if they work together. VPPs are a ‘missing link’ that unlocks the full potential of DERs.

How Do VPPs Work?

A VPP is a grid-integrated aggregation of many individual DERs. The many DERs of any given VPP act as a coordinated unit as if they were a single, larger power plant. VPPs bring together the devices in people’s homes and businesses to provide valuable services to the electricity grid, and in turn compensate consumers for those services provided.

For example, a distributed ‘fleet’ of thermostats, batteries, and EVs might all work together to shift their demand to reduce peak grid load during a summer heat wave.

What Value Do They Deliver?

VPPs make the grid more reliable and resilient to extreme weather, lower energy costs, enable economy-wide electrification, and help integrate more clean energy that reduces air pollution and its negative health impacts. The time is now to scale the market for virtual power plants.

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

Thank God for all the renewable capacity Texas continues to add:
 

 

[elfenix 34243]

apparently we've got 1/3 of the US's installed battery capacity and we're going to double that in the next year, and about to pass CA in installed utility solar:

Quote

Texas has since become a national leader in battery storage, with nearly a third of the nation’s capacity, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. Only California has more. Texas plans to nearly double the amount of battery storage on its grid within the next year, Lewin said.

The proliferation of such storage is likely to drive wind and solar development in the state even during a time the technologies are under siege in the Texas Capitol.

“A lot of this storage is coming online as kind of an insurance policy in case something breaks,” Rhodes said. “But once it is on the system, it can do more than just help us during emergencies. It can help support renewables.”

 

Wind and solar energy, Rhodes said, can be packed into the batteries when the sun is pounding and the wind is howling but demand for electricity is low, and then sold to ratepayers when they need it. The battery units are coming online at the same time Texas is vastly expanding its use of solar power, with the state on track this summer to surpass California in production of electricity from utility-scale solar farms.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/24/texas-heat-wave-power-grid/

Edited June 26, 2023 by elfenix

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Thank God for all the renewable capacity Texas continues to add:
 

 

By the way, Doug Lewin is a good follow on Twitter. Very interesting energy analysis.

[futureman 22464]

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/06/23/siemens-energy-scraps-profit-outlook-as-wind-turbine-troubles-deepen.html

[Post Oak 20214]

X-post.

Should be tight today but we will probably break the record we set yesterday.