Dumb Energy

[Brisketexan 105152]

10 minutes ago, 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.  

Oh.. Okay.  So, now I understand - you're just plain wrong.

ALL power supply is subject to downtime.  All of it.  Hell, nuclear in particular.  In fact, if you have an involuntary shutdown of a nuclear plant, it may well be for a reason that keeps it shut down for YEARS.

Even worse for your viewpoint is that the folks actually doing the very exercise you suggested -- considering our generation mix with those criteria in mind -- DO consider power sources that produce "intermittently," because that word actually means something.  What it does NOT mean is "completely unpredictable."

Solar is intermittent.  But it is pretty predictable -- generates in the daytime, not at night.  Generates at highest output at times of highest irradiance and lowest wind.  And we know general weather patterns.  We know that we're going to get pretty good solar output in August.   Wind is similar -- we know that we'll get pretty good output in March.  We also know the times of day when it will be best.

These are knowable and predictable things, and they are used in resource planning and modeling right now, today, at ERCOT.  Your opinion that "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" is both 1) encumbered by embedded logical fallacies, and 2) refuted by current real-world practices.  In other words, not only are you theoretically wrong, you are actually and demonstrably wrong, per existing market behaviors.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Brisketexan

[Captainant 27678]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

But that's inconvenient to the argument he's trying to make, hence the intellectual dishonesty and goalpost moving.

[bolverk 29683]

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Or one could just compare them honestly and show the costs for storage and transmission for wind power to provide when needed.  This is possible to do.  The reason it is often not done is because it doesn't look as impressive.  If we want wind to play a major role in base load power and assist in actually getting us off coal, then we need to look at wind solutions capable of achieving this.  

 

This is all nonsense.  Both solar and wind are subject to weather impacts that cannot be predicated more than a few days out at best.  Knowing that "we're going to get pretty good solar output in August" is useless in establishing confidence that a given solar plant will produce 100 MW from 12 - 3 on August 15 (which is the type of data that grid providers need to know).  Do you know what can give you that?  Coal, nuclear, or natural gas.  But not wind or solar without storage. The reliability & dependability of consistent power output by coal and nuclear vastly exceeds both wind and solar in every way measurable.  But you know what we could do?  Compare wind and solar with storage.  Honestly, I don't even know why this is controversial with this group.  

The data in the article compares the cost to construct and operate wind farms only to the operation of a natural gas plant but not its construction.

Sure, let's throw in the cost of energy storage and transmission on both sides of that ledger, including tank farms and pipelines for the natural gas. Moreover, we should also price in other externalities like the impact of emissions from burning that natural gas. But maybe carbon capture will someday actually happen, so I guess we'll have to add in that cost as well if we're going to have an honest comparison.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't need to store wind power when you have a stable base load to fall back on.

As long as we're all being pedants, you can't store power.  You store energy.

I find it disconcerting to consider the idea of shedding power because total supply exceeds demand, which speaks to the energy storage concern.  I have spent my entire career (save the last 30 months) in alternative energy storage field, and while lucrative it is also a very tough nut to crack.  Dollars are dollars, I get it, but the entire problem needs to be solved, not just the generation problem.  If I have to stall wind turbine blades because I have nowhere to dump power -- jeez.  Something's wrong.

[Brisketexan 105152]

31 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Knowing that "we're going to get pretty good solar output in August" is useless in establishing confidence that a given solar plant will produce 100 MW from 12 - 3 on August 15 (which is the type of data that grid providers need to know and depend on).

False on numerous counts.

For example, most of our solar farms are in far West Texas.  Where, even if there's a weather interruption (pop-up thunderstorms of the type that occur during that time of year) they are 1) of short duration and 2) limited geographic area.  So, sadly for your hypothesis, the predictability and reliability of solar energy during that time of year is pretty damned close to the predicted up-time of most other generation (again, fossil fuel generation is far from outage-proof).

Second, the actual grid manager in Texas, ERCOT, is quite comfortable with the predictability and reliability of those sources when it comes to their resource-availability models.  No hypotheticals about it -- they actually are doing it, right now.  Ever been in a QSE control room to see the real-time pricing (and the forecasting inherent in same)?  I have.

Your premise is garbage.  You first presume that fossil fuel is effectively 100% reliable.  It's not.  Outages happen (remember the brown-out we had in FEBRUARY a few years ago?  That's because fossil plants unexpectedly went down).  You next presume that wind and solar have so little predictability that they can't be relied upon in resource planning.  Also false, as ERCOT relied upon them as a significant part of resource planning right now, in the real world.  You start with shit premises/assumptions, so no matter how you try to shape it, you end up with shit.  You should stop.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Brisketexan

[jimmyjazz 45963]

I have no idea why you people (YOU people) think Axiom's points are garbage.  I think most of you are a lot more ignorant on the topic than you think you are.  But hey, wail away.

[Brisketexan 105152]

2 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

To me it seems clear that you have no involvement in any part of the energy industry, yet you aren't willing to listen and would rather make straw men. 

Interesting.  Ever spent time in a QSE control room?  Know what one is?  Have dog-eared copies of ERCOT nodal protocols on your desk?  Nope?  Interesting.

It don't make a shit if you know folks making the PRODUCTS.  What matters is the actual grid and how it's actually managed.  You know, the actual people, making the actual "pragmatic decisions," right now, here in the real world.

[wildcat09 29354]

3 hours ago, 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.  

"My desire is to get off fossil fuels for power gen as quick as possible, which is why I'll make a dozen posts in this thread talking about how the advances America has made in renewable energy aren't as impressive as they might appear and implicitly arguing that we should stick to fossil fuels because they'll always be cheaper."

[Dahobbs 17552]

39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have no idea why you people (YOU people) think Axiom's points are garbage.  I think most of you are a lot more ignorant on the topic than you think you are.  But hey, wail away.

His points aren't all complete garbage. But a lot of them have built in assumptions that are garbage. And, the way he is making his points and the emphasis he is placing on them on is also garbage. Yes, we need to consider the price of storage and the consistency of access to energy when looking at our system as a whole. Yes, intermittent sources of energy aren't going to 100% replace fossil fuels without more stable storage. No one, despite his implied insistence to the contrary, has argued otherwise. And his conclusion that intermittent sources of energy and knowledge of the cost associated with developing them are thus not useful is completely erroneous. 

Agree or disagree: a blended power grid of renewable and fossil sources can be economically superior to a grid comprised 100% of fossil sources?

Agree or disagree: to evaluate the above, you'd need to know the comparative cost of per unit energy for sources (in addition to other information)?

Agree or disagree: Ultimately, we're looking at a curve that charts the economic efficiency of a power grid from 100% intermittent to 100% fossil. We'll need to know a lot of information to do so. But the most efficient system, right now, is going to be somewhere in the middle of that curve.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 27678]

6 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Ok, so you are involved and yet still somehow managed to arrive at your current level of understanding in which you think nuclear and wind are comparable in terms reliability and capacity factors because "ALL power supply is subject to downtime...   Hell, nuclear in particular" 

Ok see now, you're completely missing what brisket was saying - which is that no power source is 100% downtime free, offering up the extremely reliable example of nuclear power, as even those need regular maintenance outages for refueling and repairs. I'm guessing that he was making that point because you seemed to be saying (by my reading, at least) that renewable energy wasn't a good idea or even feasible because it's not up 100% of the day. 

I honestly think you're just having a shit day and came here to sling shit around, because you're not even listening to what other people are posting.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Captainant

[jimmyjazz 45963]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

His points aren't all complete garbage. But a lot of them have built in assumptions that are garbage. And, the way he is making his points and the emphasis he is placing on them on is also garbage. Yes, we need to consider the price of storage and the consistency of access to energy when looking at our system as a whole. Yes, intermittent sources of energy aren't going to 100% replace fossil fuels without more stable storage. No one, despite his implied insistence to the contrary, has argued otherwise. And his conclusion that intermittent sources of energy and knowledge of the cost associated with developing them are thus not useful is completely erroneous. 

Agree or disagree: a blended power grid of renewable and fossil sources can be economically superior to a grid comprised 100% of fossil sources?

Agree or disagree: to evaluate the above, you'd need to know the comparative cost of per unit energy for sources (in addition to other information)?

Agree or disagree: Ultimately, we're looking at a curve that charts the economic efficiency of a power grid from 100% intermittent to 100% fossil. We'll need to know a lot of information to do so. But the most efficient system, right now, is going to be somewhere in the middle of that curve.

I'll let him speak for himself, but I don't think you're correctly summarizing his point of view.  It's a fact that pro-green groups manipulate data as much as the fossil fuel industry.  It's marketing.  Both sides are trying to "win" the debate.  

I, like (seemingly) all of you, as well as Axiom, would love to see us get off the fossil fuel teat as soon as possible, and I don't think it's an all-or-nothing deal, not by a long shot.  For fuck's sake, any move to more renewables stands a good chance of putting more money -- a LOT more money -- in my pocket.  I simply feel that the article linked doesn't do a good job of laying out the TRUE costs involved, which isn't to say it's wrong, but it's not particularly compelling as a business case.

Y'all should really back off.  You're fighting people who might actually be on your side.  It's surly, I get it, but come on.

 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Ok see now, you're completely missing what brisket was saying - which is that no power source is 100% downtime free,

This is such a fucking stupid argument.  Of course nothing is bulletproof.  What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?  

I'll say it again -- I'm strongly in favor of going all renewables as soon as is reasonably possible, with "reasonable" being defined as a balance of economic and environmental factors, but there is a bunch of bullshit being posted as truth on this thread.  Yeah, nothing is free of downtime, but the nominal generation capability of a fuel-based plant is 24/7.  That's so not true for renewables that it's absolutely idiotic to try and blur the distinction.  "OH YEAH?  Well, OTHER power plants go down sometimes too!"

Come on.  Some of us have real bona fides in this world.  (i.e., we're not lawyers)

Edited August 19, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Brisketexan 105152]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Ok, so you are involved and yet still somehow managed to arrive at your current level of understanding in which you think nuclear and wind are comparable in terms reliability and capacity factors because "ALL power supply is subject to downtime...   Hell, nuclear in particular" 

Comparable?  Did I say comparable?  Nope.  YOU are the person who is being almost entirely dismissive of wind and solar because it is "intermittent," even though the market has determined -- through actual operation -- that it is not so intermittent that it is not to be considered part of the available generation mix for planning purposes.  That is, the market has ALWAYS included some risk of downtime/intermittent generation in its planning, for ALL resources.  The market considers it with respect to wind and solar....yet they are STILL part of the mix.

And as to the risk of intermittent generation, weight is given to both frequency and duration.  As I noted, wind is going to be "down" more frequently than other sources.  Other sources, including nuclear, if they are to go down, could be "down" for a longer DURATION.  In fact, most of those resources have significant SCHEDULED downtime -- we know they need to be down for a certain period of time, and the resource works with the grid operator to schedule that downtime to match up with lower demand periods.  All of those have to be factored into resource planning.

It all goes into the planning hopper.  And as wind and solar have become both more cost-effective and more reliable (geographic spread helps), they are a greater share of the reliable generation mix, particularly for specific times of the day and year.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Brisketexan

[Dahobbs 17552]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'll let him speak for himself, but I don't think you're correctly summarizing his point of view.  It's a fact that pro-green groups manipulate data as much as the fossil fuel industry.  It's marketing.  Both sides are trying to "win" the debate.  

I, like (seemingly) all of you, as well as Axiom, would love to see us get off the fossil fuel teat as soon as possible, and I don't think it's an all-or-nothing deal, not by a long shot.  For fuck's sake, any move to more renewables stands a good chance of putting more money -- a LOT more money -- in my pocket.  I simply feel that the article linked doesn't do a good job of laying out the TRUE costs involved, which isn't to say it's wrong, but it's not particularly compelling as a business case.

Y'all should really back off.  You're fighting people who might actually be on your side.  It's surly, I get it, but come on.

 

 The article was largely just a summary of the top line findings from a US Department of Energy Report, not manipulated data by "pro-green groups". It wasn't making grand arguments on business cases. Axiom's criticism was that the data wasn't useful (I disagree, its useful, but not complete). He secondarily implied that intermittent energy sources are only useful if they can complete displace all fossil base-load generators. Again, I disagree. It appears the energy market and grid operators disagree as well. 

As to backing off, if he wants to make the points you think he is making, he is free to do so. I don't think that is what he has done at all. I don't care whose "side" he is on. His arguments are either very poorly presented or laced with false assumptions. And I'll continue to address those problems, thank you very much. 

[Dahobbs 17552]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is such a fucking stupid argument.  Of course nothing is bulletproof.  What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?  

I'll say it again -- I'm strongly in favor of going all renewables as soon as is reasonably possible, with "reasonable" being defined as a balance of economic and environmental factors, but there is a bunch of bullshit being posted as truth on this thread.  Yeah, nothing is free of downtime, but the nominal generation capability of a fuel-based plant is 24/7.  That's so not true for renewables that it's absolutely idiotic to try and blur the distinction.  "OH YEAH?  Well, OTHER power plants go down sometimes too!"

Come on.  Some of us have real bona fides in this world.  (i.e., we're not lawyers)

Seriously, where in the article or in this thread is ANYONE saying we should go all renewable right now based on the information in the article? No one has made the argument that I've seen. I really have no idea what you are going on about. 

[Dahobbs 17552]

11 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Right now, we can rely upon nuclear and coal for baseload power plants.  We cannot currently use wind and solar to fill the role that nuclear and coal provides today.  If you want to factor in everything effecting reliability of power production, including outages and duration, then you would conclude that nuclear is the most reliable energy source and its not even close.  

I'm not being dismissive of solar and wind.  I'm a solar and wind advocate.  I would rather see them replace coal in reality than win useless comparisons on the internet.  What I'm saying is that it would be useful to compare wind systems that are capable of continuous power supply via storage systems to other technologies capable of continuous power supply.  To use the words of jimmyjazz, "I simply feel that the article linked doesn't do a good job of laying out the TRUE costs involved..."  This was the point I was trying to make.  I don't think what I said is very controversial and I don't think it is coincidence that the people who have taken issue are the people who I have had previous debates with. 

I agree, if we are looking at completely replacing baseload power plants, we need that information. It isn't going to be favorable for renewable, at least not yet. I'm pretty sure we all know that, so I'm not entirely certain why that is a point you feel so strongly must be made. The article certainly wasn't making a business case for that, and neither has anyone in this thread. But, the question is, in the meantime, can intermittent power plants serve other beneficial purposes in our power grid. I think the answer is "yes" and I think the data in the article (again, a summary of the top line conclusions from the Department of Energy report) provides some support for that proposition.  

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45963]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Seriously, where in the article or in this thread is ANYONE saying we should go all renewable right now based on the information in the article? No one has made the argument that I've seen. I really have no idea what you are going on about. 

Are you kidding?  I feel like there is some kind of translation problem here.  I can't believe you can be reading what Brisket is bloviating about and thinking "yeah, he knows what's what".  No offense, Brisket, (well, OK some offense intended), but you're way out over your skis here.

Sorry, but I'm professionally neck deep in energy storage, and have been for decades.  The problems aren't simple and can't be argued in a forum post, regardless of how smart any particular individual thinks they are.  And, I only benefit from true knowledge of one aspect of the problem, of which there are many inputs.

This is the problem with political hot topics like this -- it is almost impossible to get past the "yeah, well my cousin told me THIS" appeal to authority bullshit.  (And yes, I realize I just appealed to my own authority.)

Whatever, this thread is now useless.  Tilt on at your windmills, gentlemen.  Pun intended.

[Dahobbs 17552]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Are you kidding?  I feel like there is some kind of translation problem here.  I can't believe you can be reading what Brisket is bloviating about and thinking "yeah, he knows what's what".  No offense, Brisket, (well, OK some offense intended), but you're way out over your skis here.

Sorry, but I'm professionally neck deep in energy storage, and have been for decades.  The problems aren't simple and can't be argued in a forum post, regardless of how smart any particular individual thinks they are.  And, I only benefit from true knowledge of one aspect of the problem, of which there are many inputs.

This is the problem with political hot topics like this -- it is almost impossible to get past the "yeah, well my cousin told me THIS" appeal to authority bullshit.  (And yes, I realize I just appealed to my own authority.)

Whatever, this thread is now useless.  Tilt on at your windmills, gentlemen.  Pun intended.

I agree, this appears to be a communication error.  I don't see Brisket making the argument you're suggesting at all. And I can't even tell if you're disagreeing with me frankly. I really just don't understand what point you or Axiom think you're making that is at odds with what others have been saying. No one has said the storage problem is simple or solved. No one has said "all renewable right now is more economic based on that article." We've just said that the article contains some useful information in evaluating wind's current and future roll in the power grid.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17552]

15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Wind can fill a supplemental role, which it is already doing (wind produces around 7% of US electric power production).  We can expand this some with the current configuration.  It is known and well established that they are useful in this supplementary role and I didn't see the need to state this; I assumed this was a given. 

If we want it to move beyond that and replace coal and become the backbone (or a significant contributor beyond mere supplementary power whenever weather cooperates) of US power production, then it needs to incorporate storage capacity.  I just don't see the point of comparing wind farms alone to nuclear or coal because they can do what we need while wind farms alone cannot.  I have larger ambitions for it than 7% supplemental power supplier.  Let's compare it like a viable power source, the same way we would nuclear, NG, or coal.      

Sure. Let's do that. That doesn't mean evaluating other data is useless. I also don't believe 7% is the upper boundary of for wind's supplementary support of the power grid. As the article points out, subsections of the market are north of 20%. I'm pretty sure we can push that higher too. Maybe the number is 40%. Or maybe not. But, I see no reason why we can't look to maximize its role as a supplementary producer while also exploring and developing technology to allow it to serve as a backbone. You've been presenting these as exclusive choices (and saying data that goes to the former is irrelevant). They are not. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Brisket is appealing to ERCOT's authority, which is at a very minimum derived from careful consideration of a handful of different inputs that go way beyond what this article tried to convey.  For one thing, ERCOT is in the here and now -- they have immediate demand needs, immediate supply to tap, and that supply is a coarse reflection of business decisions made by god knows how many suppliers, not all of which have the same goals in mind.  Taking current production ratio from renewables as a data point is specious at best.  What incentives were given to those providers?  What incentives were given to their COMPETITION?  What math is being used to compare one source versus another -- is it honest?

Does it NEED to be "honest"?  (This speaks to my feeling that we don't need renewable energy to be dollar for dollar comparable to fossil fuels, but we for damn sure better be very educated on all the costs involved, which in the state of Texas involves a significant O&G sector and the hit it will take as fossil fuels become marginalized.)

My biggest concern is that people (voters) take partial information and draw sweeping conclusions.  I think every one of us has the same end game in mind, but advocating for enhanced scrutiny in order to get close to the "optimal" path along the journey isn't silly and it doesn't make one some kind of Big Oil Whore, despite what is being alluded to on this thread.  Fuck that.

Edited August 19, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[F250 28777]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is such a fucking stupid argument.  Of course nothing is bulletproof.  What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?  

It was a very stupid argument that preys on ignorance.

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Come on.  Some of us have real bona fides in this world.  (i.e., we're not lawyers)

This cracked me up. I've spent several years working on the Grid, primarily cyber security for smart grid tech and SCADA/EMS/GMS networks. I don't have any real bona fides but I have enough real world experience to know that the lawyers were always the least knowledgeable people in the office.

Edited August 19, 2019 by F250

[Dahobbs 17552]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Brisket is appealing to ERCOT's authority, which is at a very minimum derived from careful consideration of a handful of different inputs that go way beyond what this article tried to convey.  For one thing, ERCOT is in the here and now -- they have immediate demand needs, immediate supply to tap, and that supply is a coarse reflection of business decisions made by god knows how many suppliers, not all of which have the same goals in mind.  Taking current production ratio from renewables as a data point is specious at best.  What incentives were given to those providers?  What incentives were given to their COMPETITION?  What math is being used to compare one source versus another -- is it honest?

Does it NEED to be "honest"?  (This speaks to my feeling that we don't need renewable energy to be dollar for dollar comparable to fossil fuels, but we for damn sure better be very educated on all the costs involved, which in the state of Texas involves a significant O&G sector and the hit it will take as fossil fuels become marginalized.)

My biggest concern is that people (voters) take partial information and draw sweeping conclusions.  I think every one of us has the same end game in mind, but advocating for enhanced scrutiny in order to get close to the "optimal" path along the journey isn't silly and it doesn't make one some kind of Big Oil Whore, despite what is being alluded to on this thread.  Fuck that.

I really feel like you're misunderstanding the points and arguments Brisket has been making (and apparently vice versa). But I'll let him address all that. It sounds to me like everyone is on the same page and talking past each other (and imagining their particular bugaboos in the other's arguments) 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I really feel like you're misunderstanding the points and arguments Brisket has been making (and apparently vice versa). But I'll let him address all that. It sounds to me like everyone is on the same page and talking past each other (and imagining their particular bugaboos in the other's arguments) 

Could be.  I just thought Axiom brought some added common sense to the discussion and y'all piled on while misrepresenting what he was saying.

Let me put it this way:  wouldn't it make sense to get ALL the truth on the table so that the path forward has the best chance of achieving a transition to significantly reduced carbon footprint associated with our grid?

[Brisketexan 105152]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Could be.  I just thought Axiom brought some added common sense to the discussion and y'all piled on while misrepresenting what he was saying.

Let me put it this way:  wouldn't it make sense to get ALL the truth on the table so that the path forward has the best chance of achieving a transition to significantly reduced carbon footprint associated with our grid?

Of course it would.  And my point has never been about storage -- it's about the fact that we actually do have generation resources that, while "intermittent," are an actual factor used in planning.  That's it.  Axiom has pooh-poohed "green energy" as effectively irrelevant because of its intermittent nature, yet the market treats it as a relevant resource.  I agree, it would be a LOT more relevant if legit storage was a real thing.

Hell, I listed multiple criteria, all of which are relevant -- and I'll damned well admit that how to weight all of those at any given time and place is WAY outside my wheelhouse.  But they ARE all relevant factors.

Fundamentally, I don't think that anyone here is arguing a position outside the common-sense boundaries of "we'd like more green energy, cost is a factor, and availability is a factor, and we know that for the time being, fossil fuels need to remain a material part of the mix."  EXCEPT, Axiom sure has come across as being dismissive of green energy as a resource altogether at this place and time.  i was simply pointing out that current resource planning is not nearly as dismissive of such resources as Axiom is.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course it would.  And my point has never been about storage -- it's about the fact that we actually do have generation resources that, while "intermittent," are an actual factor used in planning.  That's it. 

But WHY are they an actual factor used in planning?  Could it be that they are moderately cost-attractive BECAUSE of tax breaks and subsidies?  If so, that blurs the truth.

 

Quote

Axiom has pooh-poohed "green energy" as effectively irrelevant because of its intermittent nature, s Axiom is.

I haven't seen him do that.  Perhaps you're referring to earlier discussions.

 

Quote

yet the market treats it as a relevant resource.  I agree, it would be a LOT more relevant if legit storage was a real thing.

"Legit" storage is "a thing" -- it just has associated costs.  The economics are phenomenally complicated, but worth working out.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Dahobbs 17552]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't seen him do that.  Perhaps you're referring to earlier discussions.

I think the miscommunication started with his coffee analogy and spiraled out from there. 

[Brisketexan 105152]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But WHY are they an actual factor used in planning?  Could it be that they are moderately cost-attractive BECAUSE of tax breaks and subsidies?  If so, that blurs the truth.

I wasn't addressing costs.  Like, ever -- except to acknowledge that they are a factor in the overall long-term mix.  Axiom spoke of resource availability, I spoke of the same - that's the only point I addressed.

 

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't seen him do that.  Perhaps you're referring to earlier discussions.

It's effectively all he's done from the get-go.  "I like it, but it's intermittent, so let's blow it off" is a pretty fair paraphrasing of where he's come from.

 

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Legit" storage is "a thing" -- it just has associated costs.  The economics are phenomenally complicated, but worth working out.

Absolutely.  Like my cell phone analogy, existence/availability is one factor....economic viability/affordability is another.  Both have to work out before critical mass can be reached.  I know very little about storage technology EXCEPT to know that large-scale storage isn't yet widely deployed.  When it is -- and it surely will be at some point in time -- it will no doubt be a gamechanger.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I know very little about storage technology EXCEPT to know that large-scale storage isn't yet widely deployed.  When it is -- and it surely will be at some point in time -- it will no doubt be a gamechanger.

Well, there is at least one somewhat widely-deployed energy storage mechanism currently in use:  pumped hydro systems.  I have no idea how the economics work in conjunction with local renewable plants (wind/solar).  Basically, excess supply is used to pump water from a low reservoir to a high reservoir when cost of electricity is low, and then that water is allowed to drive hydro turbines to generate electricity when the cost is high.  Round trip efficiency is pretty good, and the water ends up back where it started, waiting for the next cycle.

Interestingly enough, there are analogous systems being tried in urban environments where massive slugs of steel/concrete/whatever are driven up and down below grade in what amount to deep vertical mineshafts to generate power on daily cycles.

[elfenix 34266]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Could it be that they are moderately cost-attractive BECAUSE of tax breaks and subsidies?

you could say that about every grid level generator. 

[Brisketexan 105152]

10 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

A large coal plant takes about 8 hours to fire up, so you can't just shut one down when we get a big surplus of wind power and bring it back online when the wind dies off. 

Among the many reasons that coal is a dying fuel.  Quick-start gas plants are much more responsive to market demand (and favorable pricing).  Not to mention that NG is cheaper (even without factoring in that it's cleaner, and thus has a lower regulatory cost).  NG is killing coal.  Not wind, not regulation.  The market is doing it.

That said, we have an incredible supply of NG, it's cheap, and it's a cleaner fossil fuel than coal.  NG is going to remain part of our mix for a good while -- no argument from me on that point.  I'm nodding in agreement.

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, there is at least one somewhat widely-deployed energy storage mechanism currently in use:  pumped hydro systems.  I have no idea how the economics work in conjunction with local renewable plants (wind/solar).  Basically, excess supply is used to pump water from a low reservoir to a high reservoir when cost of electricity is low, and then that water is allowed to drive hydro turbines to generate electricity when the cost is high.  Round trip efficiency is pretty good, and the water ends up back where it started, waiting for the next cycle.

Interestingly enough, there are analogous systems being tried in urban environments where massive slugs of steel/concrete/whatever are driven up and down below grade in what amount to deep vertical mineshafts to generate power on daily cycles.

I knew about pumped hydro, although from what I understand, it hasn't seen any large-scale deployment.  Why is that?

I didn't know about the piston idea - I've seen it on a super-small scale (remember the simple interior light powered by a slowly descending bag of rocks/sand?).  Makes sense that it could work on a larger scale.  So again, same question -- why aren't we seeing it deployed on any real scale?  I'm genuinely curious.  Is it a size/space issue?

[jimmyjazz 45963]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I knew about pumped hydro, although from what I understand, it hasn't seen any large-scale deployment.  Why is that?

Not my area, but I can surmise that it best lends itself best to specific (hilly) geographies.

 

Quote

I didn't know about the piston idea - I've seen it on a super-small scale (remember the simple interior light powered by a slowly descending bag of rocks/sand?).  Makes sense that it could work on a larger scale.  So again, same question -- why aren't we seeing it deployed on any real scale?  I'm genuinely curious.  Is it a size/space issue?

Well, it's so nascent an idea that I can't imagine it will gain any traction in our lifetime.  Drilling oil wells every 3 blocks in downtown Manhattan seems like a non-starter.  Even at that, it would probably only power a stacked parking garage or something like that.  I honestly don't know, though, I'm spit-balling based on crude not-even-back-of-the-envelope calculations.

[swraith 347]

Interesting.  Ever spent time in a QSE control room?  Know what one is?  Have dog-eared copies of ERCOT nodal protocols on your desk?  Nope?  Interesting.
It don't make a shit if you know folks making the PRODUCTS.  What matters is the actual grid and how it's actually managed.  You know, the actual people, making the actual "pragmatic decisions," right now, here in the real world.

This thread has become about as useless as a coal plant in a $2/mmbtu natural gas world. I don’t have much of value to add. But I can answer yes to all 3 of Brisket’s above questions. So I guess I have that going for me.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

2 of the largest 15 US coal power stations being shut down by the end of the year.  In Arizona and Penn.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/and-now-the-really-big-coal-plants-begin-to-close/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_coal_power_stations_in_the_United_States

 

[swraith 347]

 

In speaking for ERCOT planning, wind is absolutely planned for in the SARA report. In aggregate, total ERCOT wind generation capacity can be statistically forecast to produce a certain amount of energy at given times of the year. ERCOT produces a discount factor for nameplate wind generation capacity. This is for planning purposes. Will we see deviations from this forecasted volume in real time production on any given day? Absolutely. However a predicted amount of wind generation can be forecast for planning purposes.

 

This is no different then in aggregate you have Y nameplate capacity for thermal generation for the ERCOT grid. ERCOT forecasts a certain amount of that generationthat will be on planned and unplanned outage for planning purposes. Will you see deviations from that number in real time? Absolutely. Will large deviations cause real time pricing volatility? Possibly.

[jimmyjazz 45963]

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell the US starts building nuclear plants again.

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Seems like the last time this discussion came around somebody mentioned a Thorium reactor. From what I can gather its biggest drawback is what it's going to cost to develop it. Whether it's more risky or not seems to be debatable. I don't think anyone living in a cave can get enough uranium out of it to make a bomb, but NK or Iran could. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

7 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I think it is not likely, but not completely out of the question.  If we are really serious about getting to 0 greenhouse emissions within the next few decades, I think nuclear will become more attractive.  It’s just going to be really hard to get there by renewables alone, and nuclear is still the best option for baseload plants considering reliability and capacity factor.  Plus we can build them in places where solar and wind are not practical. There are even some democratic politicians who are now in favor of nuclear for these reasons (Cory Booker, for example).

Ahem. Germany 

[Hornius Emeritus 12464]

27 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Not sure what your point is with Germany.  They aren’t anywhere close to having wind replace fossil fuels.

Germany had 36.2 % of its electricity provided by rewewables in 2017.  They've had some days in the winter when 100% of their electricity came from renewables.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[Continental Op 3934]

Goddamn if we could power the electrical grid with smugness and self-importance we could run every electrical device on Earth for a century with this thread.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

6 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

What happened was that renewables alone couldn't replace what the nuclear energy provided and so coal consumption increased to fill the gap.  

 

Here's a chart of German coal consumption.  From late 2010, when Energiewende was adopted, to 2019:

1)  the percentage of renewables that feed the German electricity grid grew from 10.0% to 14%   

2) German consumption of coal has dwindled   

3) the population of German grew by 1.5 million people.


So despite the fact that the population of Germany grew by 1.5 million people and despite the fact that Germany has been retiring nuclear reactors, coal consumption in Germany is roughly 14% less than it was when Energiewende was passed.  

You were saying?







 

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20400]

7 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

This chart confirms what I said.

You said "what happened was that renewables  alone couldn't replace what the nuclear energy provided."

That is false. Renewables COULD replace what the nuclear energy provided, and did.  



 

[Dahobbs 17552]

33 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

You said "what happened was that renewables  alone couldn't replace what the nuclear energy provided."

That is false. Renewables COULD replace what the nuclear energy provided, and did.  



 

Seems to me that you are both somewhat correct. Maybe a better way to say it is that in the early 2010s, coal usage had to increase to make up for the loss of nuclear. And coal is still used to a significant degree in Germany because of the loss of nuclear and because of renewable's inability to takeover the base load. Of course, I've also seen it argued that the increase in coal was largely the result of the political influence of the fossil fuel industry in Germany. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Dahobbs

[zork 629]

Germany is in a relatively shitty solar as a resource area of the world:  

[zork 629]

It would help if all Federal, State, County, offices and buildings followed the Energy Star recommendations they provide themselves:

Are all Federal buildings limiting their cooling to 78 degrees in Spring, Summer, and Fall?  85 degrees for all of the buildings after 5PM and before 8AM?

[Biff Tannen 45691]

82 when I'm sleeping?

[elfenix 34266]

2 hours ago, zork said:

Germany is in a relatively shitty solar as a resource area of the world:  

i horizontally irradiated your mom last night

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Everybody knows the best radiation is vertical.

[Brisketexan 105152]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Everybody knows the best radiation is vertical.

It's more difficult to get fully vertical radiation later in the year...if you get what I'm sayin'....

[bolverk 29683]

4 hours ago, zork said:

Germany is in a relatively shitty solar as a resource area of the world:  

And yet that cloudy country with geographic area the size of New Mexico but a population twice that of California has 73 percent of the PV installed capacity of the US and the ability to produce 7-8 percent of their energy needs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country?wprov=sfla1

Now, look at that red on the map all over the US, and tell me with a straight face that we couldn't do better than a high latitude European country.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Germans pay $.40/KwH.

 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power