the death of coal?

Page 4 of 32<1234567>Last »
July 24th, 2015 at 7:34:20 AM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
Quote: Pacomartin
Well an electric utility is not the same kind of company as McDonalds. You might as well ask why a power company should encourage conservation measures who help in replacing energy inefficient appliances. Power utilities have obligations to the public well being.

Besides, these standards have been in place for a long time. In PA they were part of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004. I am in favor of a lower standard than currently exists in law. I am in favor of net metering only to 100% of a customer needs, not for a revenue generation from the utility.


A power company offers support for energy efficiency upgrades because it saves them money. The cost analysis they do is if the subsidy for the energy efficient appliance is less than their cost of adding new capacity to handle that amount of load. If the subsidy is cheaper then once the new appliance replaces the old appliance they have in effect added that much capacity to their grid.

The same analysis does not work for consumer solar or wind generation because it is not producing 100% of the time so they can't reduce any generating capacity or distribution sizing because of it. The power company will have fuel saving when they are producing but this is a very small part of their total costs.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
July 24th, 2015 at 9:26:17 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569


It seems as if the overwhelming majority of states have some kind of net metering policy, although the terms differ wildly. Some have even permitted virtual net metering (VNM).

VNM expands aggregated net metering, allowing a property owner with multiple meters to distribute net metering credits to different individual accounts, such as to tenants in a multi-family property or condominium owners. Owners of non-adjacent properties can also use credits from production on one property for consumption at another. At least five states have authorized virtual net metering, including California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
August 12th, 2015 at 5:20:03 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
So a US taxpayer subsidized Spanish alternative energy company is losing our tax dollars. This is the truth of Solar as well as Wind energy, IMHO.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/solyndra-20-nears-bankruptcy-bonds-collapse-record-lows#comments

" Abengoa - the Spanish renewable-energy company - that received over $230 million in US taxpayer subsidies"

http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/2014/04/abengoa-atrocities-sequel-california.html#.Vcvh5vlVikr "Spanish conglomerate Abengoa that snagged billions of U.S. green energy stimulus funds,"

It's bad enough that they never pay for themselves but with stimulus funds we can give the money to foreign corps. [sarc]
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW
August 13th, 2015 at 9:55:14 AM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: petroglyph
Wind and solar as it stands today would not pay for their own construction through power sales if it weren't for some kind of tax credit from the uncle sugar.


It's really hard to find hard data to determine how much more wind is government-subsidized compared to coal, oil, gas, hydro, & nuke. In order to make it an even playing field, all subsidies must be eliminated, right?

What is certain is that the cost of wind has plummeted substantially. In 2009, utilities were signing contracts with wind farms to purchase electricity for an average of 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour. In 2014, wind purchase power agreements had reached an all time low of 2.35 cents per kWh.

Part of this is because turbines are so much taller, and blades so much longer than they used to be. But economies of scale is also a factor as wind becomes more prevalent: Iowa generated 28.5% of its electricity from wind energy in 2014, South Dakota generated 25.3% of its energy from wind, and Kansas 21.7%. Nationwide, 4.4% of U.S. energy production was from wind in 2014.
August 13th, 2015 at 3:50:13 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
Quote: reno
It's really hard to find hard data to determine how much more wind is government-subsidized compared to coal, oil, gas, hydro, & nuke. In order to make it an even playing field, all subsidies must be eliminated, right?
I am not saying eliminate all subsidies. I am just saying wind or solar has never been cost positive when the true cost is factored in.

Nuclear plants pay for themselves but without government PROVIDING the insurance, no nukes would be built. No insurance company will insure them. That aside PGE built a nuke on the Columbia river across from Kalama, rumor was it payed for itself in 2 years, they also shut it down a year in advance as they were so far ahead of the game. Civilization needs to collectively pay for some things, that is where a wise government would come in helpful but I am not a big fan of trips to Mars with 50 million receiving food stamps, love the photo's from Hubble though.

Quote:
What is certain is that the cost of wind has plummeted substantially.
I think the article is misleading. The cost plummeted to who exactly? The taxpayers are still paying for the original windfarms that are decrepit and falling down.
Quote:
In 2009, utilities were signing contracts with wind farms to purchase electricity for an average of 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour. In 2014, wind purchase power agreements had reached an all time low of 2.35 cents per kWh.
If you can purchase electricity for 2.35 per kwh, I suggest buying all the gigawatts someone will sell you. I quit about ten years ago, it cost us around .06 to distribute the juice, do the math. I'll take a thousand gigs, please. If the gov. sponsors the price of the windmills, furnishes the land, pays for the connections to the grid and voltage stabilization, it's a win for somebody, but a huge loss for someone else. Follow the money. Windpower is a wonderful idea in theory, especially when all the "birdstrikes" are untold, so is solar. Nobody is telling the whole story of the true cost.

"Read more: Wind Generation Met 4.4% of US Electricity Demand in 2014 - General Electric Company (NYSE:GE) - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/energy-economy/2015/08/11/wind-generation-met-4-4-of-us-electricity-demand-in-2014/#ixzz3ijKeUelS
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook"

Ok, GE's facebook, twitter and Wall street claim all these wonderful things about wind turbines, GE is a Tax free company here in the US. They also manufactured the Fukashima nukes that are melting down. GE is a TBTF tax free corp.

From the article : "Turbine nameplate capacity of newly installed turbines was 1.9 megawatts, up 172% since 1998 to 1999."

Right from the start it says NAMEPLATE. I posted earlier about the latest windfarm on it's best day produced 14-18% of nameplate. All the windfarms in Texas of Cali on their best days, never ever ever produced nameplate capacity. Yet we still keep using their potential capacity in equations?

OK, here we are getting down to the value of these monsters" According to the report, the U.S. wind industry supports more than 73,000 jobs, representing a 30% job market increase over 2013." They are a jobs program! OK, I might even be ok with that, but not the claim that they pay for themselves. I guess I am just for truth in advertising.

Again from the article: "General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) captured 60% of the U.S. market in 2014, followed by Siemens (26%) and Vestas Wind Systems." Key words again are GE. Big campaign donors, tax free corp. Destroyer of Japan, with no liability. Easy peasy.

On a small scale they are really neat, off the grid. If every person in country wants a portion of the fruit of their labor givin to GE or FL. power or whoever makes a killing on these losing projects so some wind mill cowboys have a decent paying job, that's what it is. I just want the truth told, IDK why?

I'll use the #'s from my most familiar project, loosely. Five million dollars each, rated at 2mg's each, never makes 2mgs. On a good day and with constant maintenance [not in the equation] they make around 1 mg.

Here's my contention, if the windmills had to generate the power to convert the ore into the steel and produce the power to transport and install the wind turbine, they would never be built, they will never ever make that much power.

Maybe someone with more math skills, desire, and time could figure it out? This article has some facts: http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php From the article; How much do wind turbines weigh?
In the GE 1.5-megawatt model, the nacelle alone weighs more than 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs more than 36 tons, and the tower itself weighs about 71 tons — a total weight of 164 tons. The corresponding weights for the Vestas V90 are 75, 40, and 152, total 267 tons; and for the Gamesa G87 72, 42, and 220, total 334 tons.

So the smallest one, the GE 1.5 model ways in at 164 tons, that doesn't include the footings, road, installation or maintenance. It won't produce nameplate for more than a brief moment of time, the rest of the time if it is working, it will generate on avg. about half.

Using the # you posted at 2.35 per kwh or 20.35 dollars per mg [correct me if I'm wrong?] down from 68.00 per mg. [1 mg = 1000kwh], contracts are signed to buy electricity from wind farms for less then 21$ per meg and at 1/2 nameplate, they create [the small one] around 750kwh or .75 x 20.35 is about 150.00 per hour when the wind is blowing, and they aren't shut down for maintenance. So less than 4 thousand per day. I'll call it 3.

If these things were cost positive, the crews would be driving around eating donuts in electric trucks : ) The cost of the crews, the equipment, the parts to repair and batteries needed to stabilize the power, due to wind speed fluctuation is never figured into the equation either. The cost of the crew and the vehicle and the fuel to drive out and maintain these things would eat up the 150.00 per hour they [might] manufacture alone. They need warning lights, and in salt water environments the corrosion eats away at the structures 24/7 whether they are genning or not. You can't put dissimilar metals together in a salt air environment without them eating away at each other day and night . Add anodes and cathodes yearly, like zincs on a boat. Round and round it goes. These things are as needy as a boat, or a horse [where it's wet] if your so inclined.

Five % of having a horse "could" be riding it, the rest is maintenance, feed, vets, fencing, shoeing, and rigging, etc. On and on,,,, true cost. Add in the divorce from horses and the cost goes exponential.: )

If these things were cost positive, Warren Buffett [And Mr. Trump] would be building them everywhere. The fact is without taxpayer support, these things don't spin, with MSM spin, they turn. IMO, but they aren't net positive, when the true cost is added in, no matter who or what spins. You can't make 330 tons of steel [and copper] and melt it down and deliver it with the power a windmill delivers in it's useful life. Top that off with driving a Tesla, : )

Quote:
Iowa generated 28.5% of its electricity from wind energy in 2014, South Dakota generated 25.3% of its energy from wind, and Kansas 21.7%. Nationwide, 4.4% of U.S. energy production was from wind in 2014.
I wonder who would stake their job on those numbers being anywhere near correct? They may have taken the energy consumed and subtracted nameplate from that to arrive at those figures but I doubt there accuracy.
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW
August 13th, 2015 at 6:53:38 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: petroglyph
I wonder who would stake their job on those numbers being anywhere near correct? They may have taken the energy consumed and subtracted nameplate from that to arrive at those figures but I doubt there accuracy.


The report does specify they are referring to actual generation figures for 2014 and not just nameplate capacity. Nameplate was 5.22% for the entire USA for 2013 (not sure for 2014).

But Iowa which ranks #1 for wind generation is still dominated by coal as it's primary source.
August 13th, 2015 at 8:13:35 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
Quote: Pacomartin
Quote: petroglyph
I wonder who would stake their job on those numbers being anywhere near correct? They may have taken the energy consumed and subtracted nameplate from that to arrive at those figures but I doubt there accuracy.


The report does specify they are referring to actual generation figures for 2014 and not just nameplate capacity. Nameplate was 5.22% for the entire USA for 2013 (not sure for 2014).

But Iowa which ranks #1 for wind generation is still dominated by coal as it's primary source.
Thanks Paco.

I perused around the pdf's and didn't see the part about actual generation? The opinions I have posted are just from some grunt out in the field that attended a few board meetings with zipped lip. Wind generation is a beautiful thing and the world needs generation. In this country at least, there won't be much more hydro permitted. I don't think we have the resolve at this time to do nuclear safely.

The dollar is in trouble with competitive devaluation worldwide. Printing money for windmills makes as much sense as anything else, at least we will have some capacity to make electricity in the future. The windfarms with their noise and vibration and blotting out the skyline are personally offensive but the stacks at the Navajo SRP are ugly as well. It has to come from somewhere.

I think the reports are largely going to reflect what someone wants them to reflect.

Paco, can you figure out what Tesla was talking about when he was talking free electricity for all?

"where do we put the meter" JPM? "Wardenclyffe, a 154ft tower that was to be topped with a huge copper dome(when completed). Building one every so many miles would transmit electricity wireless all over the world."
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW
August 14th, 2015 at 1:23:19 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Quote: AZDuffman
Methinks you would be totally free to put in panels as long as you isolated them from returning power to the grid. However, this negates much of the benefit of installation as part of the benefit is sale of surplus power.
so sell the surplus power to yourself by installing a pumped hydro storage unit or a bob (big old battery) and use your own excess power at night.
August 14th, 2015 at 4:21:44 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Fleastiff
so sell the surplus power to yourself by installing a pumped hydro storage unit or a bob (big old battery) and use your own excess power at night.


Redneck engineering, baby!
The President is a fink.
August 14th, 2015 at 5:56:51 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: petroglyph

Paco, can you figure out what Tesla was talking about when he was talking free electricity for all?

Tesla was always vague about how he was going to accomplish some of these things,

Tesla was obsessed with developing a wireless power distribution system that could transmit power directly into homes and factories. He wrote a visionary 1900 article in Century magazine.and believed that resonance was the key.

He claimed to be able to transmit power on a worldwide scale, using a method that involved conduction through the Earth and atmosphere.
One of his ideas was to use balloons to suspend transmitting and receiving terminals in the air above 30,000 feet in altitude, where the pressure is lower. At this altitude, Tesla claimed, an ionized layer would allow electricity to be sent at high voltages (millions of volts) over long distances.

Resonant wireless power demonstration at the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, 1937. Visitors could adjust the receiver's tuned circuit (right) with the two knobs. When the resonant frequency of the receiver was out of tune with the transmitter, the light would go out.

Tesla in popular imagination was always the "mad scientist". He cultivated this image with publicity photos like the one below.


A recent TV show combined Tesla's personality and research with the Dracula legend.

Page 4 of 32<1234567>Last »