Dumb Energy

[Brisketexan 105154]

38 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  While it is true that 22 percent of the energy produced this year was from wind.  It is still very misleading.  That's 22 percent produced.  How much of it was consumed is the problem.  Wind mills have a few (about 40) extremely good days and produce a shit ton of energy then they have bad days about 300 where they produce 0.  So Energy produced to energy consumed is probably 5:1 so there is a lot of waste.  Coal costs money.  So they fire it up when on demand energy is required so it's probably closer to 1:1.  Wind is great but we can't get energy from it when needed.  A lot of times ERCOT NERC guys hate wind because they have to dump energy and get plants to fire down because their output is so high 

Nope.  The data COMES from ERCOT, and it reflects percentage of load served.  That means "consumed."  You are correct that wind has varying days, although your ratio is way off.  It has some great days, it has some bad days, and it has a lot of days where it's just in the middle.  The weak days are days like March, where it's cranking out a lot, but demand is low -- on those days, pricing can even go negative.  But that's (broadly speaking) how the grid is managed, by real-time pricing.

Coal is not cost-effective anymore.  AND, those plants take longer to fire up.  Quick-start gas plants on the other hand -- those are often a money-maker.  Some of them are just peaking facilities -- they just operate during high demand,  when prices are high.  And as a bonus, gas burns much cleaner, and is available locally (as opposed to coal, effectively all of which comes from Wyoming these days -- so you have to pay expensive rail costs, too).

For all of it, transmission capacity is still the biggest challenge -- getting it from where it is generated to where it's needed.

[bolverk 29683]

One interesting trend we're just now starting to see is the colocation of solar with the wind farms out in West Texas to take advantage of the land leases and already installed transmission lines to produce electricity on hot windless days.

Several solar farms have been announced out there in the last few months. Moreover, batteries for surplus energy storage are also being installed. For example, the larget battery in the world is expected to be put in place in Borden County in the next couple of years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/texas-may-get-a-new-boast-amid-plans-for-world-s-largest-battery

[Blotto 23538]

lulz. Tahoe is such a fucking retard.

[FartingMonk 3608]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Nope.  The data COMES from ERCOT, and it reflects percentage of load served.  That means "consumed."  You are correct that wind has varying days, although your ratio is way off.  It has some great days, it has some bad days, and it has a lot of days where it's just in the middle.  The weak days are days like March, where it's cranking out a lot, but demand is low -- on those days, pricing can even go negative.  But that's (broadly speaking) how the grid is managed, by real-time pricing.

Coal is not cost-effective anymore.  AND, those plants take longer to fire up.  Quick-start gas plants on the other hand -- those are often a money-maker.  Some of them are just peaking facilities -- they just operate during high demand,  when prices are high.  And as a bonus, gas burns much cleaner, and is available locally (as opposed to coal, effectively all of which comes from Wyoming these days -- so you have to pay expensive rail costs, too).

For all of it, transmission capacity is still the biggest challenge -- getting it from where it is generated to where it's needed.

That's not what the report reads according to my friends at ERCOT.  It is total MW generated that the report is based on.  

[Tom 2959]

Tahoe and the same people fighting green, renewable energy today are the same who cried and stomped their feet in protest because the government said they should use better light bulbs.  

[hpslugga 4062]

17 hours ago, Tom said:

Tahoe and the same people fighting green, renewable energy today are the same who cried and stomped their feet in protest because the government said they should use better light bulbs.  

"That incandescent light bulb ain't shit. Burning candles is where it's at. Fire pays the bills."

[RomaVicta 29927]

On 7/21/2019 at 4:30 PM, Revolution512 said:

Renewables aren’t so much the issue if you understand what the article is saying.

The origin of the article's writer:

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank founded in 1989 by James R. Leininger. It is a member of the right-wing State Policy Network (SPN) and is based in Austin, Texas. It has ties to Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and many other powerful politicians.^[1]

According to the TPPF's website, its mission "is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach."^[2]

But according to critics, TPPF's research and advocacy is influenced by donations from a relatively small group of major corporations. Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, told the Texas Observer, “Most think tanks work for their funders and TPPF’s donors are a Who’s Who of Texas polluters, giant utilities and big insurance companies. TPPF is thinking the way its donors want it to think.”^[1]

 

[bernorange 8362]

20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

... For all of it, transmission capacity is still the biggest challenge -- getting it from where it is generated to where it's needed.

There is a company of ex-military peeps who are partnering with some folks at Baylor that are trying to patent everything they can related to Tesla's wireless power transmission tower idea.  They are working on it here in Texas:

 

On 9/20/2018 at 2:21 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The economy that fully capitalizes on renewable energy first will run the world and collapse oil based economies like Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The Middle East would no longer be worth fighting over except for territory skirmishes. 

Yeah, fuck that. 

The dollar is dependent upon the oil economy.  If the oil economy collapses, so will the dollar.  It's pretty clear that Obama was pushing for renewable energy projects at the same time he was trying to untangle strings from the middle east (to not be Saudi Arabia's puppet).  I still haven't seen or comprehended the long term plan for the dollar / global economy when the oil trade doesn't dominate though.

[FartingMonk 3608]

I think the dollar and oil being pegged together has already been proven false.  Back when President Obama was running things oil sat at 20-30 and we were doing great.  The cheaper fuel costs helped other industries thrive

[swraith 347]

That's not what the report reads according to my friends at ERCOT.  It is total MW generated that the report is based on.  

ERCOT has no meaningful exports to other power grids. The multiple DC ties exist but their capacity is very small. This is what allows ERCOT to avoid FERC regulation. As such, MW generated basically equals the load consumption in ERCOT.

Wind generators do not generate excess energy if the load can not consume it. ERCOT uses SCED to send price signals to all generators. Wind is going to be the last to backdown generation based on economics because their fuel cost is zero and their marginal cost of production is negative with the subsidies. So thermal generation is going to back down production before wind. The two exceptions to this will be 1) transmission constraint leading to significant negative pricing is wind generation heavy parts of the grid or 2) unsafe wind conditions that force with wind turbine operators to backdown the wind turn one to keep it safe.

Capacity utilization factors for wind farms vary wildly based on their location. Think 20% to 40% annually. Some of the wind farms on the coast line may exceed those numbers to the high side.

[bernorange 8362]

@FartingMonk- you misunderstand.  It's not about the price of oil vs. the dollar index.  It's about the rest of the world needing dollars to buy oil.  That necessity is what drives the petrodollar.

[Parliament 14260]

One interesting trend we're just now starting to see is the colocation of solar with the wind farms out in West Texas to take advantage of the land leases and already installed transmission lines to produce electricity on hot windless days.
Several solar farms have been announced out there in the last few months. Moreover, batteries for surplus energy storage are also being installed. For example, the larget battery in the world is expected to be put in place in Borden County in the next couple of years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/texas-may-get-a-new-boast-amid-plans-for-world-s-largest-battery

I'm curious. What type of batteries are those? I know the "high volume/low density" battery thing is very different than what you have in your phone.

[American Swindle 102]

On 9/20/2018 at 12:18 PM, David Dennison said:

Wind and solar are here to stay.

Get used to it.

Doesn't it take an amount of wind turbines that cover the area of Connecticut to get the same energy produced by one nuclear plant?  Wind and Solar a great, but no more Solyndra boondoggles.  As in, government needs to stay the fuck out of it. 

[Captainant 27680]

On 7/28/2019 at 11:32 AM, FartingMonk said:

Yeah.  While it is true that 22 percent of the energy produced this year was from wind.  It is still very misleading.  That's 22 percent produced.  How much of it was consumed is the problem.  Wind mills have a few (about 40) extremely good days and produce a shit ton of energy then they have bad days about 300 where they produce 0.  So Energy produced to energy consumed is probably 5:1 so there is a lot of waste.  Coal costs money.  So they fire it up when on demand energy is required so it's probably closer to 1:1.  Wind is great but we can't get energy from it when needed.  A lot of times ERCOT NERC guys hate wind because they have to dump energy and get plants to fire down because their output is so high 

You're describing an engineering problem for how to store the excess energy. The most efficient solution is to back-pump water into reservoirs that are configured with hydroelectric dams, converting the electrical energy into potential energy by moving water uphill. Check out pumped storage hydroelectricity Definitely not a silver bullet, but I think there's more benefit that we could realize from building out more of these facilities 

[elfenix 34272]

Alta wind farm is about 1 useful jiggawatt-hour per acre:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_Wind_Energy_Center

STP nuke plant is about 1.8 useful jiggawatt-hour per acre.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating_Station

[Captainant 27680]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I’m not sure what you are even trying to say here.  Are you trying to compare power production per land area?  If so, that unit would be gigawatt/acre (or some other unit in the form of power/area), not gigawatt-hour per acre.   A gigawatt hour is a unit of energy; giving energy per acre makes no sense.  

In any case, if you are attempting to compare power per land area, nuclear is more power dense than wind by a factor of over 300.

https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

You can use a lot of the land between wind turbines, but you still need to map out a whole lot of land that is suited for wind power generation and transmission.   Nuclear is far superior in this aspect.  

Not agreeing/disagreeing with either of yall since I'm not sure what elfenix was trying to say either lol., but you're forgetting that nuke plants have a regulatory-required emergency planning zone which affects zoning and the possible uses of surrounding land, which is a considerable opportunity cost that is not the case for wind/solar plants. And nuclear plants have pretty stringent land requirements as well considering flood planes, fault lines, water table level, access to cooling water, etc.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

I don't see anyone prefers coal over wind, unless your career is tied to coal or you just like to stand against environmentalists at all costs.

[elfenix 34272]

 

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I’m not sure what you are even trying to say here.

i'm obviously putting some context to the land use of wind vs. nuke in response to this comment:

2 hours ago, American Swindle said:

Doesn't it take an amount of wind turbines that cover the area of Connecticut to get the same energy produced by one nuclear plant? 

 

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

A gigawatt hour is a unit of energy

no shit sherlock.

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

[Telegraph_it 3357]

On 7/28/2019 at 12:54 PM, bolverk said:

One interesting trend we're just now starting to see is the colocation of solar with the wind farms out in West Texas to take advantage of the land leases and already installed transmission lines to produce electricity on hot windless days.

Several solar farms have been announced out there in the last few months. Moreover, batteries for surplus energy storage are also being installed. For example, the larget battery in the world is expected to be put in place in Borden County in the next couple of years.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/texas-may-get-a-new-boast-amid-plans-for-world-s-largest-battery

This is accurate from what I have seen out there. Lots of cotton farms turning into solar farms. A couple of sections that have been in my wife's family since who knows when out in the panhandle were just signed up for a 30 year contract for solar. West Texas land just keeps on finding new ways to print money. 

[bolverk 29683]

3 hours ago, Parliament said:

On 7/28/2019 at 12:54 PM, bolverk said:

One interesting trend we're just now starting to see is the colocation of solar with the wind farms out in West Texas to take advantage of the land leases and already installed transmission lines to produce electricity on hot windless days.
Several solar farms have been announced out there in the last few months. Moreover, batteries for surplus energy storage are also being installed. For example, the larget battery in the world is expected to be put in place in Borden County in the next couple of years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-13/texas-may-get-a-new-boast-amid-plans-for-world-s-largest-battery

I'm curious. What type of batteries are those? I know the "high volume/low density" battery thing is very different than what you have in your phone.

I wish I could tell you, but I'm not really versed in all that. I bet you could find out more if you did some digging.

This Toshiba lithium ion battery project is a couple miles south of my hometown.

https://www.energy-storage.news/news/toshiba-nrg-to-deliver-battery-storage-system-in-texas

You've now exhausted my full knowledge on this new technology.

[elfenix 34272]

55 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You gave a nonsense unit to make a completely inaccurate comparison.  I honestly don’t know what you meant. Did you mean  1 gigawatt of production per acre?   If so, do you really think you can fit 1 GW of production onto the equivalent of 4 suburban house plots?  1 GW of nuclear power production requires roughly 1 to 1.5 square miles, not 1 acre.   If your point was that nuclear and wind are comparable in terms of power per land usage, then this is also very wrong.  Nuclear power is one of the densest forms of power production per area, while wind power is the least dense.  What you wrote was some combination of nonsense and complete inaccuracy.   

STP is 12,200 acres with 2 reactors.  nameplate capacity is 2560 MW.  capacity factor was 95% in 2017.  that gives a useful energy output of 21612 GWh in 2017.  alta wind farm is a bit better than half the nameplate capacity (1547 MW) while on about a quarter of the acreage (3200 acres).  applying capacity factor, because the wind doesn't always blow and the grid can't always use the power, you get useful energy output of 3179 GWh.  using GWh as the useful output isn't my invention - the pages for nuke plants seem to always have it and so do wind farms. 

 

anyway, if you want to compare 1,000 acre tracts or 500 acre tracts, go right on ahead.  regardless, it doesn't take a wind farm the size of connecticut to be in the range of a nuclear plant - which is what the comparison shows.   for some reason you can't wrap your head around it. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by elfenix

[Revolution512 1487]

10 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

The origin of the article's writer:

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank founded in 1989 by James R. Leininger. It is a member of the right-wing State Policy Network (SPN) and is based in Austin, Texas. It has ties to Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and many other powerful politicians.^[1]

According to the TPPF's website, its mission "is to promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation by educating and affecting policymakers and the Texas public policy debate with academically sound research and outreach."^[2]

But according to critics, TPPF's research and advocacy is influenced by donations from a relatively small group of major corporations. Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, told the Texas Observer, “Most think tanks work for their funders and TPPF’s donors are a Who’s Who of Texas polluters, giant utilities and big insurance companies. TPPF is thinking the way its donors want it to think.”^[1]

 

I’m sure that information is critical to taxpayers in our city. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

I notice fossil fuel stocks have been getting pummeled in the capital markets lately. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12469]

Santiago, Chile, is will have 400 Chinese-made electric buses on the streets by October.  The energy to power them is comes from the sun and is gathered on location. The buses are cheaper to operate than conventional buses, and cleaner:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-09/santiago-s-electric-bus-fleet-cuts-costs-and-cleans-the-air

[bolverk 29683]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/?amp=1

This week, the US Department of Energy released a report that looks back on the state of wind power in the US by running the numbers on 2018. The analysis shows that wind hardware prices are dropping, even as new turbine designs are increasing the typical power generated by each turbine. As a result, recent wind farms have gotten so cheap that you can build and operate them for less than the expected cost of buying fuel for an equivalent natural gas plant.

....

In the US, the prices for wind power had risen up until 2009, when power purchase agreements for wind-generated electricity peaked at about $70 per MegaWatt-hour. Since then, there's been a very steady decline, and 2018 saw the national average fall below $20/MW-hr for the first time. Again, there's regional variation with the Great Plains seeing the lowest prices, in some cases reaching the mid-teens.

That puts wind in an incredibly competitive position. The report uses an estimate of future natural gas prices that show an extremely gradual rise of about $10/MW-hr out to 2050. But natural gas—on its own, without considering the cost of a plant to burn it for electricity—is already over $20/MW-hr. That means wind sited in the center of the US is already cheaper than fueling a natural gas plant, and wind sited elsewhere is roughly equal.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

Wind is now cheaper than natural gas:


https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

[jimmyjazz 45971]

Stated another way, it's important to look at not only cost per unit power but cost per unit energy.  Ultimately, utility customers purchase energy (kW-hrs, etc.).  They just do it at varying rates (kW, etc.).  Because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources, excess energy must be stored when power demand is low and transmitted when demand is high.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

Comparing intermittent power sources to continuous power sources capable of contributing to the base load power demand is comparing apples to oranges.  If we really want to get off fossil fuels, then we have to be honest with the data.  The comparison that is actually useful is show the total cost to include the storage and transmission systems necessary to give the same continuous base load power output between the two options.  Stating that a continuous output natural gas plant costs $x/MW and an intermittent output wind farm costs $y/MW is a useless comparison.  What is the total cost for a wind farm to produce 100 MW of continuous output compared to a natural gas plant?  Run those numbers and they don't look so good at the moment. 

 

The article that I posted is a comparison of the cost of the SOURCE of the electricity.

Why you  a) cite the article that I linked and then b) compare things that the article doesn't take up   is  c) known only to you.

Wind power doesn't claim to be a 100% continuous output source and won't be until battery storage life is improved. That may come with graphene or other technologies currently being researched and developed.  Until then, it wind power will be a tremendously useful ---- and growing ------ adjunct, as we're already seeing here in Texas.

If I tell you that you can choose a) to get 100% of your electricity from natural gas and pay 10 cents per kilowatt hour or b) to get 70% of your electricity from wind and pay 4 cents per kilowatt hour for that  and the remaining 30% of your electricity from natural gas and pay 10 cents per kilowatt hour,  which are you going to choose?



 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Brisketexan 105154]

The fact that we still -- at present -- require a mix of power generation sources isn't exactly a controversial fact.  Yes, we all know that solar and wind can't generate 24/7 like gas, coal, and nuclear can.  BUT, we also know that solar and wind can be a bigger and bigger part of the generation mix.  AND, it turns out, a cost-effective one.

Analogy:

We've gone from using all gasoline-powered cars to a mix of electric and gas cars.  We can use electric cars in the city and for short road trips.  We still need to use gas cars for longer trips without charging stations, but our overall mix is increasingly electric, which helps reduce overall emissions.

We're going to have natural gas generation plants for years to come.  We get that.  What I don't understand is the utter hard-on some folks have for keeping fossil fuels as the biggest chunk of our generation profile as possible.

[Brisketexan 105154]

Just now, Axiom of Choice said:

My desire is to get off fossil fuels for power gen as quick as possible.  I believe this is more likely to happen if more people know and understand all the important factors involved in building and operating reliable power supply.  I think articles with cherry picked data are impediments to achieving the goal of zero green house emissions asap.  

It's not "cherry-picked" data.  It's actual data, showing one very important factor -- yes, for the periods in which they are generating (an obvious qualifier, but one that you seem to insist upon, so there it is), wind is becoming cheaper than the most-used fossil fuel.  That's a pretty important data point.  One of the bigger criticisms against green energy before was that it was never cost-effective.  Now, it is.  That's a relevant fact, all on its own.

Maybe all of these articles should have a footnote to make you happy: "Fossil fuels like natural gas remain a source of generation, and will for some time until storage issues are resolved."

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

HUABS:  Here's an article about a football game.

Axiom of Choice: Yes, but I feel it's important to remember that, while both are games,  football is not baseball.

HUABS:  What the fuck?

 

[DixonHur 11337]

7 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

If I can serve you an espresso at 1 AM for 25 cents, but can't give you one at 7 AM when you want it, do you really give a shit? 

If we actually want to get off fossil fuels for power gen, then there is only one criteria that matters:  the ability to provide continuous power output to supply energy when needed.  Anything other than this will not get the job done.   

Here's what I'm hearing you say..."it's pointless to walk until we can run"

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

Axiom - is your argument that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy production until it can produce 100% of the power needs?  Or that we should just turn off all non-renewable sources and deal with the consequences?

you might have a good point to make, but you're not communicating it well.

[Dahobbs 17608]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's not "cherry-picked" data.  It's actual data, showing one very important factor -- yes, for the periods in which they are generating (an obvious qualifier, but one that you seem to insist upon, so there it is), wind is becoming cheaper than the most-used fossil fuel.  That's a pretty important data point.  One of the bigger criticisms against green energy before was that it was never cost-effective.  Now, it is.  That's a relevant fact, all on its own.

Maybe all of these articles should have a footnote to make you happy: "Fossil fuels like natural gas remain a source of generation, and will for some time until storage issues are resolved."

The data is actually a bit more impressive than that. It shows it is cheaper to build and operate a new wind farm than to FUEL an existing natural gas plant. The economics are now to a point where we should immediately replace as much of natural gas energy usage as we can with wind power. That doesn't mean completely replace the natural gas plant. It just means limiting as much as possible the time when we are actually operating and fueling the plant. 

[Dahobbs 17608]

15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

If I can serve you an espresso at 1 AM for 25 cents, but can't give you one at 7 AM when you want it, do you really give a shit? 

If we actually want to get off fossil fuels for power gen, then there is only one criteria that matters:  the ability to provide continuous power output to supply energy when needed.  Anything other than this will not get the job done.   

Some simple math:

25% of my demand for coffee occurs from 1 am to 7 am. 75% of my demand occurs the rest of the day. My choices:

(1) buying all coffee at any time of day for $2 a cup.

(2) buying coffee from 1 am to 7 am for $.25 a cup and the rest of the day for $2 a cup. 

Which option is cheaper per day?

 

[Brisketexan 105154]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

If I can serve you an espresso at 1 AM for 25 cents, but can't give you one at 7 AM when you want it, do you really give a shit? 

If we actually want to get off fossil fuels for power gen, then there is only one criteria that matters:  the ability to provide continuous power output to supply energy when needed.  Anything other than this will not get the job done.   

And the price of that power output.  Because if green energy costs $30 when everything else costs $3, then it's prohibitively expensive.  SO, there are actually TWO criteria that matter -- the economic impediment, AND the physical impediment.

This article notes that ONE of those impediments is now much less of a factor.  That sort of information is relevant.  Just like it's relevant vice-versa when the physical impediment is overcome, but the economic one remains.

In your world, the reporting on the first mass-produced mobile phone in 1973 was pointless, because it wasn't affordable for the masses.  Why discuss physical availability if we hadn't ALSO conquered affordability?

Your sophistry is lazy and stupid.

[jimmyjazz 45971]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The data is actually a bit more impressive than that. It shows it is cheaper to build and operate a new wind farm than to FUEL an existing natural gas plant. The economics are now to a point where we should immediately replace as much of natural gas energy usage as we can with wind power. That doesn't mean completely replace the natural gas plant. It just means limiting as much as possible the time when we are actually operating and fueling the plant. 

Yes, but the cost to build is reduced by tax breaks.  The article points out that we should see a boon in the short term because future bottom line costs will be higher due to the elimination of those tax credits.

[Dahobbs 17608]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, but the cost to build is reduced by tax breaks.  The article points out that we should see a boon in the short term because future bottom line costs will be higher due to the elimination of those tax credits.

Yes, that is true. Although, even without tax breaks, it still shows wind power being cheaper (just not so drastically cheaper), which is a big deal. We'd also have to account for all subsidies and tax benefits for fossil fuel plants if we wanted a complete comparison. 

[jimmyjazz 45971]

Agreed.  I think that gets to the heart of Axiom's point -- an apples to apples comparison is important.  That said, so is the encouraging cost trajectory of wind energy.

[Brisketexan 105154]

6 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

 

Of course the economics matter, that is why I have mentioned it in my first and proceeding posts on this exchange.  So compare the actual costs of providing power when needed.  That was my original point and is still my point.  We should compare the costs of what it takes to achieve the important criteria.   Are you able to make such a comparison between wind and NG and do you know what those numbers look like?   Saying that it can make power cheaply when the wind blows is not completely useless but it is useless for comparison purposes.  

Nope.  That's not what you're doing.  AT ALL.  Power is "needed" 24/7.  The total load varies (in Texas, load peaks in the afternoon, for example, then goes way down overnight), but some power is always needed.  LOTS of power is needed at certain times.  The production curves on solar and wind match up well to higher loads.  In fact, that's one reason that wind and solar do so well in Texas -- in our market, as the need goes up, the price at each node goes up.  So, the solar farm isn't just selling $20 power....it's selling $2,000 power (at times -- again, see this past week).

You keep trying to claim that you are looking at this holistically, but you repeatedly fail to do so.  Again, really piss-poor sophistry.  I'm not impressed.

[Dahobbs 17608]

16 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Here is why it is not impressive:  we need power when we need it and not when we don't.  Wind gives us power when the wind blows and not necessarily when we need it.  If you had to supply the power grid for your own house, you would not use a wind turbine unless you also installed a large energy storage system along with it.  Otherwise, you would be without power all the time.  But in reality, you just would buy a natural gas engine because that is the cheapest option that gets you what you actually need.  

Go back to the coffee post. Do you agree there is value in marginally decreasing the cost/carbon associated with energy production? If it is both economically and environmentally superior to replace 40% of natural gas production with wind production, should we avoid doing so simply because we cannot 100% remove natural gas production from the equation?

For being a logician, you constantly force false dichotomies in your arguments. 

(also, if you're going to include storage of wind energy in a hypothetical 100% replacement scenario, you also need to account for the massive amount of capital and operating expenses tied up with the storage and transportation of fossil fuels). 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

11 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

No, that is not my point.  My point is that we should focus on the energy portfolio that can actually get us off fossil fuels asap.  What we need is a base load power supply that gives us energy when needed.  If wind is going to fill this role, then let's compare the wind systems capable of providing this.  Otherwise, the claimed victories over natural gas are pointless.     

Why are you setting a goal of ASAP?  I think it should be a goal but down the line.  

With current tech I see it was a major risk to solely rely on renewables.  Someday we can get there but that today isn’t today. In the meantime, let’s invest in all options that there market will support. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Do you think it is possible that the criteria you go by if you were actually responsible for such decisions might not be the same criteria given in popular science articles, and that the comparison metrics in these articles is completely useless for your purposes? 

Criteria.  Plural.

Criterion.  Singular.

Many of these articles are about a criterion.  Each of which -- as you point out above -- is important.

Any article, and any portfolio analysis, should consider THIS criterion: generation availability tied to demand.  A positive development with respect to that single criterion is newsworthy.

And any article, and any portfolio analysis, should consider THIS criterion: likely cost of generation.  A positive development with respect to that single criterion is newsworthy.

Any article, and any portfolio analysis, should consider THIS criterion: emissions profile of a generation source.  A positive development with respect to that single criterion is newsworthy.

You are -- continuously and repetitively -- creating a false dichotomy.  EACH criterion is important.  Thus, developments with respect to ANY SINGLE criterion is important.

Articles should cover the fact that costs for certain generation are going lower.  Articles should cover the fact that the emissions of certain generation are better.  Articles should cover the fact that we've developed good storage options for generated power (when that happens).  It is an invalid, foolish, stupid criticism of a discussion of any ONE criterion to say "but what about the other two?"

Nobody -- not anyone on this thread -- has argued that any of those criteria should be dismissed.  So your fucking point is no point at all.  It's just you disingenuously trying to say you are looking at the big picture.

You think you're being clever.  You're not.

 

[Brisketexan 105154]

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I'm aware that criteria is plural, which is why I said "what are the important criteria."  You didn't address my question.   What criteria would be at the top of your list to make comparisons and to determine the power portfolio needed to achieve these goals? 

What articles should do and what they actually set out to do are different things.  What most of the type set out to do is get clicks by giving impressive looking data, regardless of whether it is useful or not.

Question -- is data that relates to a single criterion frequently useful?

[Dahobbs 17608]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Criteria.  Plural.

Criterion.  Singular.

Many of these articles are about a criterion.  Each of which -- as you point out above -- is important.

Any article, and any portfolio analysis, should consider THIS criterion: generation availability tied to demand.  A positive development with respect to that single criterion is newsworthy.

And any article, and any portfolio analysis, should consider THIS criterion: likely cost of generation.  A positive development with respect to that single criterion is newsworthy.

Any article, and any portfolio analysis, should consider THIS criterion: emissions profile of a generation source.  A positive development with respect to that single criterion is newsworthy.

You are -- continuously and repetitively -- creating a false dichotomy.  EACH criterion is important.  Thus, developments with respect to ANY SINGLE criterion is important.

Articles should cover the fact that costs for certain generation are going lower.  Articles should cover the fact that the emissions of certain generation are better.  Articles should cover the fact that we've developed good storage options for generated power (when that happens).  It is an invalid, foolish, stupid criticism of a discussion of any ONE criterion to say "but what about the other two?"

Nobody -- not anyone on this thread -- has argued that any of those criteria should be dismissed.  So your fucking point is no point at all.  It's just you disingenuously trying to say you are looking at the big picture.

You think you're being clever.  You're not.

 

This. And, he continuously asserts that a single criterion trumps the others: base load capable generation. And he continues to ignore mixed generation possibilities (i.e., some wind, some fossil, some other), even though they are almost certainly better by every metric than 100% reliance on fossil fuels. You don't need to store wind power when you have a stable base load to fall back on. But, that wind power can reduce your utilization of the more expensive/more carbon intensive base load producers. 

[Brisketexan 105154]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Yes, if the criterion is useful. 

Is cost a useful criterion?

[hayden_horn 11362]

hey yall i got a great idea let's not bother walking until we can run a marathon

[Dahobbs 17608]

21 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

Do you think it is possible that the criteria you go by if you were actually responsible for such decisions might not be the same criteria given in popular science articles, and that the comparison metrics in these articles is completely useless for your purposes?  What I think is that if we all three had to go through this exercise, we would agree on far more than we disagree (at least on how to approach the problem and what are the important criteria).

What a trivial point to make. 

Yes, I expect that those responsible for such decision will consider a more in-depth set of criteria than discussed in a short popular science article. That doesn't mean the popular science article has no value or that its abridged discussions and conclusions are wrong. 

 

[Dahobbs 17608]

Just now, Axiom of Choice said:

I don't think comparing the cost per energy unit produced by a power supply capable of providing power continuously & when needed to the cost per energy unit produced by a power supply capable of producing energy only intermittently and not predictably is useful.  It's a simple point I've made repeatedly.  

Why not? You can mix the two and create a more efficient overall system. Just because an intermittent supply cannot completely replace the the continuous supply, doesn't mean the intermittent supply is not useful.  But in order to know if the mixed system would be more efficient, we need to start with a useful piece of data: the comparative cost per energy unit produced.