Wind Energy Projects

The operators of coal and nuclear are the ones asking for welfare payments

to even be able to generate competitive power to the grid . They all have fuel

costs which solar and wind don't have so right off the bat they have a huge

anchor around their necks , especially now with battery storage is being put

in to offset the intermittent nature of their power .

Power producers bid for generation shares and the most competitive win .

This book has a very outdated looking back instead of forward .

Both coal and nuclear are on the dole for subsidies .

BigBarney

BigBarney wrote: ↑

Mon. Aug. 27, 2018 5:54 pm

The operators of coal and nuclear are the ones asking for welfare payments

Clearly Barney since solar and wind are so cheap (at least according to you) you would support dropping all subsidies and the more important mandates across the board for all sectors of power generation?

For starters the cost to produce electric from coal at it's lowest wholesale price point is about 3 or 4 cents wholesale. The PTC tax credit for wind as one example is about 2.3 cents. How does the wind sector deal with the loss of credit that is 1/2 to to 2/3 of the competitors price?

Magic Richard, magic.....

Kevin

Here's why future energy prices will be lower... Shutdown 10 years ahead of schedule....

Three or four cents / KwHr is fantasy when all costs are added in .....

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/colorado-approve ... ge/531098/

"We're looking at [wind prices] in the low teens to low 20s [in dollars/MWh] — not starting prices, but levelized across the 25-year life of the project," he said. "That beats gas, even at today's prices."

"Replacing that capacity does not appear difficult for the utility. Earlier this year, Xcel received over 400 proposals in response to its resource solicitation that returned record-breaking bids for storage-paired renewables. The utility plans to add 1.8 GW of renewables to its portfolio, including 1,100 MW of wind and 700 MW of solar to replace its coal-fired generation."

Fossil fuels cannot compete....

Bigbarney

BigBarney wrote: ↑

Tue. Aug. 28, 2018 11:09 am

Fossil fuels cannot compete....

Then clearly it's time to eliminate the subsidies and mandates, do you support that? Yes or No?

"We're looking at [wind prices] in the low teens to low 20s

Math is fundamental, this would be less than the PTC credit. Their cost would be a negative dollar amount, LOL. This would allow them to give electric away or even pay someone to use it while still generating a profit. If we are to believe what they are stating we are getting into free energy machine territory. This is clearly not possible so the conclusion you can draw is they are misrepresenting what their costs are.

Time for a reality check from the real world. Denmark is one if of not the leading manufacturers of wind turbines. The percentage of electric they produce from the wind per capita is the highest in the world. They pay about 33 cents per kWh.

I don't agree with subsidies and the mandates should be reasonable and

achievable .

There is already a situation in CA where companies have to pay to find

a utility to take the excess power in the peak production time for solar

energy.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

"The answer depends in large part on how fast battery storage improves, so it is cheaper and can store power closer to customers for use when the sun isn’t shining. Solar proponents say the technology is advancing rapidly, making reliance on renewables possible far sooner than previously predicted, perhaps two decades or even less from now — which means little need for new power plants with a life span of 30 to 40 years."

This points out the need for a lot more storage batteries to save the excess rather

than giving it away. You don't see many US companies expanding their battery

production , we are giving it to the world , and mainly to China which has many

battery plants in construction , we will be dependent on them for our supply.

BigBarney

Barney I see you have avoided the math problem completely, this is no surprise.

BigBarney wrote: ↑

Tue. Aug. 28, 2018 12:14 pm

I don't agree with subsidies and the mandates should be reasonable and

achievable .

Why would you need mandate for something that is cheaper? Furthermore how do other technologies compete against a guaranteed market for solar and wind?

There is already a situation in CA where companies have to pay to find

a utility to take the excess power in the peak production time for solar

energy.

And? Germany on ideal days can power their grid entirely with renewables and has a similar situation where they are giving free power to industries on those days so they use it up. The problem is the next day if the conditions are poor on comes the fossil fuel generation. That dual system has created rates are about ->>>> 35 cents per kWh. <<<<--- That's the real world and not some pie in the sky example.

You can say batter, battery, battery all you want but that is never going to be cost effective enough to remove the guaranteed power generated by fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro. In an ironic twist it may actually be quite beneficial to conventional power plants where the power production is predictable and may in the future make them cheaper to run.

This is coal's battery capable of storing months of power if you have the space as power plants do. We all know how cheap this battery can be.

If I were the President, or at least if I had some power in the federal energy policies, I'd launch a 5-year probatory system in which 5 similarily sized cities would be powered with different sources : one entirely with coal, one entirely by nuclear energy, one entirely by solar energy... You see the picture. Maybe it'd be better to choose them according to the local climate (as in, a solar based system will work better in Arizona than in Maine), but at the end of the 5-year period, an official, unbiased (if possible) team would compare the costs, issues and advantages of all methods, and the best one would be chosen as the main federal direction of development ; I don't care whether it's liberal-friendly wind energy or good ol' coal, I want what gives me the best bang for my buck.