Burning Coal

[Mime-Is-Money]

^He made a relatively small investment in two seemingly undervalued coal companies. He's taken speculative positions in fossil fuel organizations in the past, profited, then pooled those returns with the rest of his accumulated wealth to fund billions in renewable energy advancements.

wouldn't surprise me if the Koch Brothers have SCTY or SUNE in their portfolio.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Yes, it absolutely is the incremental cost of producing energy for newly installed capacity. What is included in numerator is the total cost is the up front capex, fixed & variable O&M, depreciation, taxes, etc. I have never said anything to the contrary. That's why it's expressed in MWh or kWh.

By definition the LCOE is the universal "metric for comparing new generating sources".



Yes, it does incorporate utilization rates. Capacity factor is an integral part of the LCOE calculation.

Your issue is just with the LCOE calculation. You're right in that there are limits to LCOE, such as the exclusion of dispatchibility. But LCOE only focuses on the cost of incremental energy produced from the newly constructed power generating asset. So, the LCOE figures presented by Z aren't wrong (other than they're outdated and solar/wind are now cheaper) and are extensively used by the industry when determining investment strategies to add additional capacity to an existing power grid.



Yes, LCOE does demonstrate the relative cost of contributing to load requirements. It's additional energy for the grid. As I've said multiple times, it's not a measure of fulfilling all energy demands.

And yes, as stated before, the LCOE calculation does account for capacity factors.

Obviously, as I said, Wind and Solar are not meant to cover the full demands of base loads.

And you build additional capacity to add energy to the grid to meet demand. Any additional capacity goes to serve a load and doesn't have to cover the full demand of said load.

Are you of the opinion that LCOE shouldn't be used by the industry, and the utilities / other energy analysts are wasting their time applying LCOE when comparing projects?

You're just getting caught up on the strawman notion that solar and wind are presently meant to meet all demands of the grid as the sole source of the power supply. They're not. They're supplemental energy sources, at least until the storage costs of renewable energy reaches grid and socket parity.

I have never said the calculations are wrong. You and Z are using them incorrectly. LCOE is not used in the industry to evaluate new generation projects in the way you are describing. The numbers in that table mean nothing with respect to how generation is evaluated because renewable sources are rarely evaluated as a stand alone option. Nobody is comparing the installation of coal with the installation of wind when they need capacity because wind cannot replace coal. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to get across. The levelized revenue requirement for wind is not a comparable number to the levelized revenue requirement for coal because wind cannot do what coal does. I'm not sure how else to make it any clearer. If you don't unerstand that, and most people outside the industry don't, then I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. The point being that the chart tells you absolutely nothing about the relative costs of meeting a capacity shortfall with the two options, and people who use them to suggest that these are the real costs people will see if we choose one option over the other are wrong and are misleading people.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

I have never said the calculations are wrong.

Z just did a straight copy and paste, word for word, from the USEIA website on the comparisons of LCOE for "new generation [energy] resources. And you then replied: "Actually, that's not true".

So you're saying the USEIA is stating incorrect information on LCOE, in which Z then copied & pasted.

And you stated that “When a utility installs solar or wind, it must also install a secondary source of capacity that can be dispatched in the event that the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining when they need the capacity.”

That’s 100% false. The utilities already have the dispatchable capacity in place. The utility scale solar and wind projects installed provide additional power to the grid. Utility scale projects ARE NOT constructed to be the sole fulfillment of all energy grid demands, and utilities do not need to build back up plants to support any new renewable capacity. Utilities and retail energy providers offtake power produced from the completed renewable projects at a competitive rate and distribute it in conjunction with the remainder of their energy portfolio in hopes to meet all demand.

LCOE is not used in the industry to evaluate new generation projects in the way you are describing. The numbers in that table mean nothing with respect to how generation is evaluated because renewable sources are rarely evaluated as a stand alone option. Nobody is comparing the installation of coal with the installation of wind when they need capacity because wind cannot replace coal.

Wow, this is really wrong, and I’ve stated why numerous times.

Yes, LCOE is widely used in the industry in order to evaluate new projects because it’s the basis in which power generation centers price their product to utilities and other retail energy providers.

And yes, renewable energy projects are evaluated on their own, not to satisfy 100% of energy demands but to satisfy specific energy needs.

And yes, people are comparing the installation of coal with the installation of wind because wind power provides incremental energy to the grid, same as coal. Wind and Solar would never, ever be implemented if stakeholders weren’t reviewing LCOE. Ever. Why was Wind Power the largest source, by far, of new capacity installed in the US last year? It’s not because it’s LCOE was ignored. And obviously equal capacity of fossil fuel burning plants were not installed to support the intermittency of these wind projects.

Energy sources by amount - new generation in 2014

I'm not sure why that is so difficult to get across.The levelized revenue requirement for wind is not a comparable number to the levelized revenue requirement for coal because wind cannot do what coal does. I'm not sure how else to make it any clearer.

And that’s wrong. LROE, a derivative of LCOE, was created just for such comparisons. I sit next to guys on our utility scale project development team that haggle with the likes of SCE, SDGE, PG&E, Xcel, NGrid, Duke, NRG, etc, etc, etc over this every day when selling PPA's.

Wind does exactly what coal does in terms of producing incremental energy, and at comparable rates. LCOE and LROE are not used when comparing costs of building entirely new energy grids that satisfy base load demand. They are for the comparison of cost and revenue of newly installed capacity.

As someone who has spent 20+ years in the field you should be able to grasp that. It truly can’t be any clearer.

I'm assuming the USEIA is using this wrong :

And the Institute for Energy Research is using it wrong :

I The point being that the chart tells you absolutely nothing about the relative costs of meeting a capacity shortfall with the two options, and people who use them to suggest that these are the real costs people will see if we choose one option over the other are wrong and are misleading people.

Actually, the chart tells me plenty, even though LCOE and LROE are not meant to compare the ability to fully “meet capacity shortfall”. Utilities usually don’t fulfill a single capacity shortfall with one project.

So you’re saying the entire energy industry is wrong for using LCOE/LROE to compare true costs of adding additional capacity to existing grids?

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

I don't have a feeling toward it one way or the other. But Dollar signs don't mean squat. Replacing old transmission lines could fall under the smart grid net, or installing remotely reporting meter boxes, they have no more to do with a "smart grid" than before. Battery or capacitor storage technology as well.

I see how the electrical load works everyday, and while wind and solar are viable options in order to have a sustainable grid coal is going to play a large part for a very long time to come. Or Nukes are going to have to be built at a rapid rate.

Whats going to happen in the next 10-20 years is as older coal plants are phased out, and natural gas is used more it's price will escalate, and more efficient ,cleaner coal plants will be built more than likely.

Megawatts are bought and sold like stock. Right now where I am it's $44 a megawatt on the open market, but its a mild summer day. A couple of weeks ago they were approx $65 but if a big unit somewhere tripped offline they would've jumped up considerably. And back during the cold snap last year and the year before they were consistently in the $100's of dollar at one point jumping up to $1500 a megawatt for a few hours when a large unit somewhere tripped offline. And thats all because electricity is an instantaneous demand, if a utility is short it can cause the whole grid to collapse at the worst, or rolling blackouts in areas.

Replacing old transmission lines =/= overhaul of transmission system

I understand, you're only focused on spot prices in the energy market, or requirements in the very short term, and not long term cost considerations for utilities to meet a 40%+ increase in energy demand over the next 10-15 years that are to be distributed on the same inefficient grids currently in place.

 

[JDHoss]

Coal is a nasty *** source of energy. I say this as someone who was born and lived in the coalfields for 34 years. I have numerous relatives and friends who worked/work in the mining industry. I have 3 relatives who died from black lung. I used to watch the Powell River turn black every time we got more than a sprinkle of rain. If you walked down to the river, you sank to your ankles in sludge. We burned it at home, and I've filled up the stoker countless times as a youngster. Just flat nasty to load, and the soot was everywhere. Google Dook Power water contamination sometime, or even the Elk River spill. I really wish there was such a thing as "clean coal", but there isn't, and I don't need a graph or chart to know that.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Be a better example? Lead the way for the rest of the world? I'm sure we can find a reason.

US has 350 million people. China and India have a BILLION each. How soon are they going to sop using coal?...Can't the Potus use his pen and phone to make them stop. After all they love him and will do anything His Majesty ask, right?. I think Trump is on to something about our leaders:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::smiley::sunglasses:

 

[Bill Derington]

Replacing old transmission lines =/= overhaul of transmission system

I understand, you're only focused on spot prices in the energy market, or requirements in the very short term, and not long term cost considerations for utilities to meet a 40%+ increase in energy demand over the next 10-15 years that are to be distributed on the same inefficient grids currently in place.

Mime, replacing transmission lines is a normal operating practice, it has nothing to do with a smart grid. Thats exactly wwhat I meant by catch phrase.

Also, It's highly unlikely power demand is going to increase by 40% over the next 10-15 years. Over the last 15 years I've been in the field demand has gone down as efficient appliances, tv's, computers, lights and industry leaving has affected the power demand.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

George Soros the puppet master of the Left shows what a hypocrite he is as is most of the leftist politicians. You guys want to take a guess what this critic of coal did this week?

They are all hypocrites. Left and right. Blue and red. Lib and con. One side isn't any better than the other. All thirsty for power to serve their own interests and mainly the interests of the big businesses that back them.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

US has 350 million people. China and India have a BILLION each. How soon are they going to sop using coal?...Can't the Potus use his pen and phone to make them stop. After all they love him and will do anything His Majesty ask, right?. I think Trump is on to something about our leaders:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::smiley::sunglasses:

Man you guys will always find a way to turn it into an Obama, left, blue , right, red thing. We aren't responsible for what China does or doesn't do. We are responsible for the decisions we make and the actions we take.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Z just did a straight copy and paste, word for word, from the USEIA website on the comparisons of LCOE for "new generation [energy] resources. And you then replied: "Actually, that's not true".

So you're saying the USEIA is stating incorrect information on LCOE, in which Z then copied & pasted.

And you stated that “When a utility installs solar or wind, it must also install a secondary source of capacity that can be dispatched in the event that the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining when they need the capacity.”

That’s 100% false. The utilities already have the dispatchable capacity in place. The utility scale solar and wind projects installed provide additional power to the grid. Utility scale projects ARE NOT constructed to be the sole fulfillment of all energy grid demands, and utilities do not need to build back up plants to support any new renewable capacity. Utilities and retail energy providers offtake power produced from the completed renewable projects at a competitive rate and distribute it in conjunction with the remainder of their energy portfolio in hopes to meet all demand.



Wow, this is really wrong, and I’ve stated why numerous times.

Yes, LCOE is widely used in the industry in order to evaluate new projects because it’s the basis in which power generation centers price their product to utilities and other retail energy providers.

And yes, renewable energy projects are evaluated on their own, not to satisfy 100% of energy demands but to satisfy specific energy needs.

And yes, people are comparing the installation of coal with the installation of wind because wind power provides incremental energy to the grid, same as coal. Wind and Solar would never, ever be implemented if stakeholders weren’t reviewing LCOE. Ever. Why was Wind Power the largest source, by far, of new capacity installed in the US last year? It’s not because it’s LCOE was ignored. And obviously equal capacity of fossil fuel burning plants were not installed to support the intermittency of these wind projects.

Energy sources by amount - new generation in 2014

And that’s wrong. LROE, a derivative of LCOE, was created just for such comparisons. I sit next to guys on our utility scale project development team that haggle with the likes of SCE, SDGE, PG&E, Xcel, NGrid, Duke, NRG, etc, etc, etc over this every day when selling PPA's.

Wind does exactly what coal does in terms of producing incremental energy, and at comparable rates. LCOE and LROE are not used when comparing costs of building entirely new energy grids that satisfy base load demand. They are for the comparison of cost and revenue of newly installed capacity.

As someone who has spent 20+ years in the field you should be able to grasp that. It truly can’t be any clearer.

I'm assuming the USEIA is using this wrong :

And the Institute for Energy Research is using it wrong :

Actually, the chart tells me plenty, even though LCOE and LROE are not meant to compare the ability to fully “meet capacity shortfall”. Utilities usually don’t fulfill a single capacity shortfall with one project.

So you’re saying the entire energy industry is wrong for using LCOE/LROE to compare true costs of adding additional capacity to existing grids?

Understanding context will help understand what a person is saying. Z was using the chart, as many do, to imply that switching from coal to wind will have little to no impact on a customers electric bills. That is a false conclusion. That chart cannot tell you that because it is not that simple. When I said that is wrong, I wasn't saying the chart was wrong. I was saying his conclusion is wrong.

You sound like you work with power marketers and NUGs. That is a completely different animal and those people have very little understanding of how a utility builds and plans generation. The fact that you are talking about PPAs and power generation centers tells me you have no clue what I am talking about. Neither of those apply to the point I was making. It is 100% true that a utility will install or buy back-up generation to support wind because wind cannot replace a unit that can be dispatched. You keep saying it's not true, but you can't explain why it's not true. Explain this for me. If a utility is going to be 100 MWs short on capacity how would it serve it with wind? You also state " utilities do not need to build back up plants to support any new renewable capacity." You also argue against the fact that wind must have a back-up generation source by saying "That’s 100% false. The utilities already have the dispatchable capacity in place." So please explain how a utility would build generation facilities to serve that load?

Also the fact that you keep talking about energy tells me you have no idea what I'm talking about. Utilities do not build generation for energy supply. Never. NUGs do because they get tax breaks and a high rate for the power they produce from utilities who are mandated in many cases to buy the power. But utilities do not ever, ever, build generation to supply energy.

Are you familiar with a CCN? Have you ever participated in the CCN process? If so, explain in general terms how it works.

As I have said before, the calculations are not wrong, how you're using them is wrong. Just because you show a chart of the LCOE for each generation type does not mean that the process a utility goes through to build generation is as simple as that chart. It's not. In a utility's portfolio, wind cannot replace coal by itself. If you live in the world of NUGs, then yes that is all that matters because you are not obligated to serve a particular load. But I never said anything about NUGs. I have always been specific that I am talking about utilities. If the chart can explain how a utility decides how it will meet a shortfall, then please explain that when you walk me through how a utility is going to build generation to meet it's 100 MW shortfall.

You almost get the point when you say "LCOE and LROE are not meant to compare the ability to fully “meet capacity shortfall”. However, when coupled with everything else you say, I still think you are missing the point altogether.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Mime, replacing transmission lines is a normal operating practice, it has nothing to do with a smart grid. Thats exactly wwhat I meant by catch phrase.

And that's why I said replacing transmission lines is not the same thing as overhauling the transmission system with smart grid technologies.

Also, It's highly unlikely power demand is going to increase by 40% over the next 10-15 years. Over the last 15 years I've been in the field demand has gone down as efficient appliances, tv's, computers, lights and industry leaving has affected the power demand.

The 40% increase in demand is global (I might have said US, I was wrong). But in the US, electricity demand increased ~15% over the last 15 years even with the significant economic downturn starting in 2008 and the proliferation of energy efficient machinery and appliances.

 

[Bill Derington]

And that's why I said replacing transmission lines is not the same thing as overhauling the transmission system with smart grid technologies.



The 40% increase in demand is global (I might have said US, I was wrong). But in the US, electricity demand increased ~15% over the last 15 years even with the significant economic downturn starting in 2008 and the proliferation of energy efficient machinery and appliances.

I thought you were meaning the US, I don't think you said it.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Understanding context will help understand what a person is saying. Z was using the chart, as many do, to imply that switching from coal to wind will have little to no impact on a customers electric bills. That is a false conclusion.

No, Z wasn't implying anything about switching from traditional power sources to renewables. Z copied and pasted that chart to show the economic viability of installing new power generating capacity. That's how LCOE is used and why it's calculated, to compare overall costs of installing new capacity. I don't see where Z stated anything in the post that you replied to with "Actually, that is wrong". You've created an argument that didn't exist.

Understanding context will help understand what a person is saying. Z was using the chart, as many do, to imply that switching from coal to wind will have little to no impact on a customers electric bills. That is a false conclusion. That chart cannot tell you that because it is not that simple. When I said that is wrong, I wasn't saying the chart was wrong. I was saying his conclusion is wrong.

You sound like you work with power marketers and NUGs. That is a completely different animal and those people have very little understanding of how a utility builds and plans generation. The fact that you are talking about PPAs and power generation centers tells me you have no clue what I am talking about. Neither of those apply to the point I was making. It is 100% true that a utility will install or buy back-up generation to support wind because wind cannot replace a unit that can be dispatched. You keep saying it's not true, but you can't explain why it's not true. Explain this for me. If a utility is going to be 100 MWs short on capacity how would it serve it with wind? You also state " utilities do not need to build back up plants to support any new renewable capacity." You also argue against the fact that wind must have a back-up generation source by saying "That’s 100% false. The utilities already have the dispatchable capacity in place." So please explain how a utility would build generation facilities to serve that load?

Also the fact that you keep talking about energy tells me you have no idea what I'm talking about. Utilities do not build generation for energy supply. Never. NUGs do because they get tax breaks and a high rate for the power they produce from utilities who are mandated in many cases to buy the power. But utilities do not ever, ever, build generation to supply energy.

Are you familiar with a CCN? Have you ever participated in the CCN process? If so, explain in general terms how it works.

As I have said before, the calculations are not wrong, how you're using them is wrong. Just because you show a chart of the LCOE for each generation type does not mean that the process a utility goes through to build generation is as simple as that chart. It's not. In a utility's portfolio, wind cannot replace coal by itself. If you live in the world of NUGs, then yes that is all that matters because you are not obligated to serve a particular load. But I never said anything about NUGs. I have always been specific that I am talking about utilities. If the chart can explain how a utility decides how it will meet a shortfall, then please explain that when you walk me through how a utility is going to build generation to meet it's 100 MW shortfall.

You almost get the point when you say "LCOE and LROE are not meant to compare the ability to fully “meet capacity shortfall”. However, when coupled with everything else you say, I still think you are missing the point altogether.

Later Edit : I have more, will be offline for the next 4 hours

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

No, Z wasn't implying anything about switching from traditional power sources to renewables. Z copied and pasted that chart to show the economic viability of installing new power generating capacity. That's how LCOE is used and why it's calculated, to compare overall costs of installing new capacity. I don't see where Z stated anything in the post that you replied to with "Actually, that is wrong". You've created an argument that didn't exist.



Later Edit : I have more, will be offline for the next 4 hours

Actually, in the very post where he posted the chart, at the bottom he says with external costs, renewable sources of energy are a better deal than coal. He also implies in earlier posts that telling people their bills will triple is fantasy. Some of that is exaggeration, but his point was pretty clear.

 

[Chuckinden]

Good Lord!! Just say if you are for burning coal or not!!

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Good Lord!! Just say if you are for burning coal or not!!

I don't care what we burn as long as those decisions are based on economics and not agenda or politics.

 

[Chuckinden]

I don't care what we burn as long as those decisions are based on economics and not agenda or politics.

Even if it harms people and the environment?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Even if it harms people and the environment?

As I have said before, that is the role of government. They have to balance the need for cheap energy with the harmful effects of obtaining that energy when establishing pollution standards. Like many products, it is a balancing act between products that are affordable and the potential harm they do. Automobiles are a perfect example. They could be made much, much, safer than they are, but at a cost prohibitive price. Manufacturers balance the safety aspect with the cost as best they can. That balance means people will die in car accidents that would not with a safer car, but many more people can afford cars than they otherwise would. It's a balancing act.

 

[3 fan_rivals214492]

Coal plants must have "scrubbers" installed now to catch pollutants. I've worked on several. There are also static charge "sheets" that catch and clean the burnoff before release.

Burning coal is much cleaner now than 10 years ago. Hippies and Eco freaks don't want to hear that but it's true. Mountaintop removal is as clean now as it's ever been and many of this areas are now being developed

 

[Deeeefense]

Coal plants must have "scrubbers" installed now to catch pollutants. I've worked on several. There are also static charge "sheets" that catch and clean the burnoff before release.

Burning coal is much cleaner now than 10 years ago. Hippies and Eco freaks don't want to hear that but it's true. Mountaintop removal is as clean now as it's ever been and many of this areas are now being developed

I was buying scrubber equipment for fossil plants at TVA back in the early 80s. That's nothing new. Baghouses and electrostatic precipitators were also being used back then. All these stuff helps but some emissions still are released.

 

[Deeeefense]

another negative byproduct of coal-fired plants that isn't mentioned much is the fly ash. The temporary solution is to store it in settling ponds. Some of it can be recycled but not nearly enough to keep up with the storage issue. When accidental spills occur they create tremendous damage to the environment and the health of humans and wildlife. TVA had one at their Kingston Fossil Plant 5 years ago that created a horrible mess - they are still trying to clean it up.

Just another reason to mitigate the use of coal in power production as much as possible.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

What kind of emissions Deeeeee? How much?

 

[Deeeefense]

What kind of emissions Deeeeee? How much?

go look it up - Google is your friend.

 

[3 fan_rivals214492]

I never stated that there were no emissions, but not near what Eco freaks want you to believe

 

[fvanhoose]

What is your take on burning coal?

I know it has really hurt some regions in our country economically, but unless we can come up with a way to stop the pollutants from being released in the air, I hope we get away from using coal.

Here is an EDITORIAL (That means its and OPINION) some may find interesting.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9186313/carly-fiorina-climate-wrong

 

[mrhotdice]

^He made a relatively small investment in two seemingly undervalued coal companies. He's taken speculative positions in fossil fuel organizations in the past, profited, then pooled those returns with the rest of his accumulated wealth to fund billions in renewable energy advancements.

wouldn't surprise me if the Koch Brothers have SCTY or SUNE in their portfolio.

I would say that Peabody Coal which sold for 85.00 a share in July of 2011 and has now down to 1.65 is undervalued. Why, Obama s policy to destroy Kentucky.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Carly Fiorina had a terrific response to the global warming problem in her interview with Katie Couric. Undoubtedly, some of her numbers are off, but the concepts are spot on.

She sucks as a candidate, but this was excellent.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

Here is an EDITORIAL (That means its and OPINION) some may find interesting.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9186313/carly-fiorina-climate-wrong

I read that too. Tons of bait and switch in that article. Sounds like Fiorina was off on some of her numbers, but not by much.

 

[neilborders]

Coal is a nasty *** source of energy. I say this as someone who was born and lived in the coalfields for 34 years. I have numerous relatives and friends who worked/work in the mining industry. I have 3 relatives who died from black lung. I used to watch the Powell River turn black every time we got more than a sprinkle of rain. If you walked down to the river, you sank to your ankles in sludge. We burned it at home, and I've filled up the stoker countless times as a youngster. Just flat nasty to load, and the soot was everywhere. Google Dook Power water contamination sometime, or even the Elk River spill. I really wish there was such a thing as "clean coal", but there isn't, and I don't need a graph or chart to know that.

This. People who live(d) in "coal country" don't need to see any facts or statistics to know how unhealthy it is for the people who live there.

 

[Deeeefense]

Here is an EDITORIAL (That means its and OPINION) some may find interesting.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9186313/carly-fiorina-climate-wrong

Excellent piece. At least Fiorina acknowledges Global Climate Changes is a problem that's more than most of the other buffoons including Trump who says it's a hoax.

While it's true her interview was full of hyperbole and non-truths, I think she is right that technological innovation is going to be the key that get's us down the road to solving this issue and of course with it will come economic, health and national security benefits as well (not mentioned in the interview or article).
However the author is also correct in pointing out that innovation will be advanced in part due to regulations.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I saw an article in passing the other day that said something about some new technology that is being developed that can pull Co2 from the atmosphere and convert it into carbon nanofibers? Any one know anything about this? It looked legit but I didn't research it any further.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Ahight, finally able to respond....

Understanding context will help understand what a person is saying. Z was using the chart, as many do, to imply that switching from coal to wind will have little to no impact on a customers electric bills. That is a false conclusion.

No, Z wasn't implying anything about switching from traditional power sources to renewables. Z copied and pasted that chart to show the economic viability (on average in the US) of installing new power generating capacity for various energy sources. That's how LCOE is used and why it's calculated, to compare overall costs of installing new capacity. I don't see where Z stated anything in the post that you replied to with "Actually, that is wrong". You've created an argument that didn't exist.

You sound like you work with power marketers and NUGs. That is a completely different animal and those people have very little understanding of how a utility builds and plans generation.

I work for an IPP developer. It's not a completely different animal, our major customers . partners are investor owned utilities. Our sales and dev teams pitch projects to them every day as utilities decide between building or buying additional capacity. We have a VERY good understanding of how utilities plan additional capacity and conduct load forecasting, it’s the very basis of our business model.

The fact that you are talking about PPAs and power generation centers tells me you have no clue what I am talking about.

What? Why? Power plants have nothing to do with utilities? Utilities don’t sign PPA’s with IPP’s? Rhetorical questions, obviously they do. Ever since the deregulation of the energy markets utilities have increasingly sold off their generating assets or purchased (and re-purchased) through the wholesale market.

IPP’s, or NGU’s as you call them, product 50% of the electricity consumed in the US, and one of their most used metrics is LCOE. Obviously other considerations exist with building or buying additional capacity, including, as you mentioned, generation mix, LACE estimates, RPS fulfillment, regional constraints, etc. You won't build a wind farm in Eastern Kentucky, just like you won't choose to set up a coal plant in the Central Valley of CA. But what Z posted, to which you said “Actually that is not true” is the average LCOE figures for the US, which vary in each and every situation.

The energy market does not stop at the old vertically integrated utility model of building power plants and selling directly to consumers. It’s moving farther away from that every year.

It is 100% true that a utility will install or buy back-up generation to support wind because wind cannot replace a unit that can be dispatched. You keep saying it's not true, but you can't explain why it's not true.

No, it’s not 100% true that a utility installs or buys back-up generation to support wind. PG&E’s Bigalow Canyon wind farm was not built with back-up generation because the wind farm serves as a large scale variable energy generator that is used in combination with existing dispatchable sources. The Xcel Nobles Wind Farm was not built with additional back-up generation as the energy generated from the farm is used to satisfy MN’s RPS. The back-up generation is already in place with traditional sources. The implementation of renewables is to satisfy increased demands and/or renewable portfolio standards.

I can EASILY explain why it’s not true, you’re just not listening. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, the LCOE calculation is a measure of installing incremental capacity to an existing resource mix in which grid demands require additional supply.

Explain this for me. If a utility is going to be 100 MWs short on capacity how would it serve it with wind?

You build a 200 MW wind farm, like Xcel did in MN, at $1.50 / W that generates electricity at 5c per kWh. Nice metrics, right? And you don’t have to install a Watt of back up generation, because it’s already in place with the existing grid servicing the greater Minneapolis area. This supplements energy previously generated and consumed from the dispatchable power generators in the grid so that when the wind doesn’t blow, the existing generators will fulfill the demand. Our grids are designed to accommodate constant fluctuations of supply and demand. It’s no different when energy created by wind farms is introduced.

But we both know that utilities just don’t go out and build a 100MW plant to satisfy a 100MW shortfall in supply. More often than not, they’ll bridge that gap with positions in the wholesale energy market, perhaps supplemented by building their own generating assets.

Also the fact that you keep talking about energy tells me you have no idea what I'm talking about. Utilities do not build generation for energy supply. Never. NUGs do because they get tax breaks and a high rate for the power they produce from utilities who are mandated in many cases to buy the power. But utilities do not ever, ever, build generation to supply energy.

Wha??? That’s just absurd. So PSE&G isn’t building Sewarn 7 to supply additional capacity to their NJ grids? Duke Energy isn’t constructing a 750 MW gas plant in SC to add additional capacity? Dominion isn’t building a 1,400 MW gas plant in VA to supply additional generating capacity and “serve growing customer demand”?? LG&E and KU aren’t building the new gas plant at the Cane Run property?

And then you say that utilities are mandated to buy their power…..but dismiss the importance of LCOE?

Are you familiar with a CCN? Have you ever participated in the CCN process? If so, explain in general terms how it works.

I have no interest in getting anywhere near the CCN process. Are we going to start comparing the banality of our occupations by describing administrative processes that add to soft costs? Let’s discuss the HR training that you we to complete in our respective companies, yeah?

As I have said before, the calculations are not wrong, how you're using them is wrong. Just because you show a chart of the LCOE for each generation type does not mean that the process a utility goes through to build generation is as simple as that chart. It's not. In a utility's portfolio, wind cannot replace coal by itself. If you live in the world of NUGs, then yes that is all that matters because you are not obligated to serve a particular load. But I never said anything about NUGs. I have always been specific that I am talking about utilities. If the chart can explain how a utility decides how it will meet a shortfall, then please explain that when you walk me through how a utility is going to build generation to meet it's 100 MW shortfall.

It’ll probably purchase surplus electricity on the open markets, which are priced based on the LCOE of the specific project in which the electricity is generated, along with other market factors.

The chart is NOT looking to explain how utilities meet their shortfalls, for the 1000th time, it’s comparing the average LCOE of newly installed capacity in the US by different means of generation.

 

[Chuckinden]

I saw an article in passing the other day that said something about some new technology that is being developed that can pull Co2 from the atmosphere and convert it into carbon nanofibers? Any one know anything about this? It looked legit but I didn't research it any further.

It's hard for me to believe that with today's technology scrubbers can't remove all the toxic gases released in the air due to burning anything.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Ahight, finally able to respond....




No, Z wasn't implying anything about switching from traditional power sources to renewables. Z copied and pasted that chart to show the economic viability (on average in the US) of installing new power generating capacity for various energy sources. That's how LCOE is used and why it's calculated, to compare overall costs of installing new capacity. I don't see where Z stated anything in the post that you replied to with "Actually, that is wrong". You've created an argument that didn't exist.




I work for an IPP developer. It's not a completely different animal, our major customers . partners are investor owned utilities. Our sales and dev teams pitch projects to them every day as utilities decide between building or buying additional capacity. We have a VERY good understanding of how utilities plan additional capacity and conduct load forecasting, it’s the very basis of our business model.



What? Why? Power plants have nothing to do with utilities? Utilities don’t sign PPA’s with IPP’s? Rhetorical questions, obviously they do. Ever since the deregulation of the energy markets utilities have increasingly sold off their generating assets or purchased (and re-purchased) through the wholesale market.

IPP’s, or NGU’s as you call them, product 50% of the electricity consumed in the US, and one of their most used metrics is LCOE. Obviously other considerations exist with building or buying additional capacity, including, as you mentioned, generation mix, LACE estimates, RPS fulfillment, regional constraints, etc. You won't build a wind farm in Eastern Kentucky, just like you won't choose to set up a coal plant in the Central Valley of CA. But what Z posted, to which you said “Actually that is not true” is the average LCOE figures for the US, which vary in each and every situation.

The energy market does not stop at the old vertically integrated utility model of building power plants and selling directly to consumers. It’s moving farther away from that every year.



No, it’s not 100% true that a utility installs or buys back-up generation to support wind. PG&E’s Bigalow Canyon wind farm was not built with back-up generation because the wind farm serves as a large scale variable energy generator that is used in combination with existing dispatchable sources. The Xcel Nobles Wind Farm was not built with additional back-up generation as the energy generated from the farm is used to satisfy MN’s RPS. The back-up generation is already in place with traditional sources. The implementation of renewables is to satisfy increased demands and/or renewable portfolio standards.

I can EASILY explain why it’s not true, you’re just not listening. As I’ve said on numerous occasions, the LCOE calculation is a measure of installing incremental capacity to an existing resource mix in which grid demands require additional supply.



You build a 200 MW wind farm, like Xcel did in MN, at $1.50 / W that generates electricity at 5c per kWh. Nice metrics, right? And you don’t have to install a Watt of back up generation, because it’s already in place with the existing grid servicing the greater Minneapolis area. This supplements energy previously generated and consumed from the dispatchable power generators in the grid so that when the wind doesn’t blow, the existing generators will fulfill the demand. Our grids are designed to accommodate constant fluctuations of supply and demand. It’s no different when energy created by wind farms is introduced.

But we both know that utilities just don’t go out and build a 100MW plant to satisfy a 100MW shortfall in supply. More often than not, they’ll bridge that gap with positions in the wholesale energy market, perhaps supplemented by building their own generating assets.




Wha??? That’s just absurd. So PSE&G isn’t building Sewarn 7 to supply additional capacity to their NJ grids? Duke Energy isn’t constructing a 750 MW gas plant in SC to add additional capacity? Dominion isn’t building a 1,400 MW gas plant in VA to supply additional generating capacity and “serve growing customer demand”?? LG&E and KU aren’t building the new gas plant at the Cane Run property?

And then you say that utilities are mandated to buy their power…..but dismiss the importance of LCOE?



I have no interest in getting anywhere near the CCN process. Are we going to start comparing the banality of our occupations by describing administrative processes that add to soft costs? Let’s discuss the HR training that you we to complete in our respective companies, yeah?

You have demonstrated over and over again that you have no clue how utilities function. Yes, IPPs provide power to utilities through PPAs, etc, but that doesn't mean you have the first clue how a utility builds its generating portfolio, which is the topic of our discussion.

Bigalow and Nobles were built because of state mandates for renewables, not because they have the lowest LCOE, or provide capacity to fill a shortfall. They were both built to meet each state's renewable mandates. Minnesota has a 25 by 25 standard where 25% of the energy has to come from renewables by 2025. Northern States Power needed that in order to meet that standard. The same is true with Bigalow where Oregon has a similar standard. Back-up generation wasn't needed because a capacity shortfall wasn't the reason they were constructed in the first place. In fact, it is common now for wind projects to be priced with gas back-up generation.

Your comment about how to serve a 100 MW shortfall says it all. Here is your response. You build a 200 MW wind farm, like Xcel did in MN, at $1.50 / W that generates electricity at 5c per kWh. Nice metrics, right? And you don’t have to install a Watt of back up generation, because it’s already in place with the existing grid servicing the greater Minneapolis area. This supplements energy previously generated and consumed from the dispatchable power generators in the grid so that when the wind doesn’t blow, the existing generators will fulfill the demand. Our grids are designed to accommodate constant fluctuations of supply and demand. It’s no different when energy created by wind farms is introduced.

If there is a 100 MW shortfall in capacity in Minneapolis and you have installed 200 MWs of wind. In your example, if the wind doesn't blow, you say existing generators will fulfill the demand. If there is a 100 MW shortfall, then the existing generation will be 100 MWs short of fulfilling the capacity. So how does that work? It doesn't, unless you plan on implementing some sort of rolling blackout to shed a 100 MWs. If the existing generation was sufficient to fill the shortfall, there wouldn't be a shortfall to begin with. By the way the 5 cent per kWh is a subsidized rate.

I said utilities never install generation to provide energy. You basically proved what I was saying. All of those projects you mentioned were built to meet capacity requirements, not energy requirements. I'm not sure you understand the difference. "Serve growing customer demand" means capacity, not energy.

Comparing the CCN process to HR training is laughable. The CCN process is how generation gets added for utilities. Without it, utilities would not add capacity. If you don't understand the CCN process, you don't understand what criteria comes into play for utilities building generation. By the way, PPA agreements have to go through the CCN process just like any other source of generation.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

It's hard for me to believe that with today's technology scrubbers can't remove all the toxic gases released in the air due to burning anything.

I THINK they can. I just think its too expensive of an investment.