Electrical Energy Prices Up

[MolaKule]

I found this in Sunday's paper from the La Times.

Quote:
...The electrical system's duress was a direct result of the polar vortex, the cold air mass that settled over the nation. But it exposed a more fundamental problem. There is a growing fragility in the U.S. electricity system, experts warn, the result of the shutdown of coal-fired plants, reductions in nuclear power, a shift to more expensive renewable energy and natural gas pipeline constraints. The result is likely to be future price shocks. And they may not be temporary...



Quote:
..."Everywhere you turn, there are proposals and regulations to make prices go higher," said Daniel Kish, senior vice president at the Institute for Energy Research. "The trend line is up, up, up. We are going into uncharted territory."
New emissions rules on mercury, acid gases and other toxics by the Environmental Protection Agency are expected to result in significant losses of the nation's coal-generated power, historically the largest and cheapest source of electricity. Already, two dozen coal generating units across the country are scheduled for decommissioning. When the regulations go into effect next year, 60 gigawatts of capacity — equivalent to the output of 60 nuclear reactors — will be taken out of the system, according to Energy Department estimates...



Spike in Electric Power Prices

 

[A_Harman]

Who was it that promised to make the price of electricity skyrocket?

Half the people of this country asked for it, now we all get to pay for it.

Democracy in action.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Who was it that promised to make the price of electricity and fuel skyrocket?

Half the people of this country asked for it, now we all get to pay for it.

Democracy in action.


Fixed that for you

My electric bill for a one bedroom apartment was ridiculous. I ended up only heating the bedroom to 50 degrees. I'm not giving in to them.

 

[JHZR2]

"New emissions rules on mercury, acid gases and other toxics by the Environmental Protection Agency are expected to result in significant losses of the nation's coal-generated power, historically the largest and cheapest source of electricity."

Cant exactly see what's so bad about removing that stuff. I sure dont want it in my backyard and breathed by my toddler, your family and area may be different.

Thing is, clean coal can be done and implemented. Even if the generating process is more expensive, the fuel is still dirt cheap.

The other problem is the cost of running peaker plants if there are transients from the renewables.

They alluded to the polar vortex... Anyplace that uses electric heat is going to have more demand that may not have been accounted for, and this WILL drive cost increases. Its easy to play the blame game for political arguments, but natural market forces associated with climate variability may be a major driver...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Who was it that promised to make the price of electricity skyrocket?

Half the people of this country asked for it, now we all get to pay for it.

Democracy in action.


Any other political posts and the thread has to go away... Beware.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
"New emissions rules on mercury, acid gases and other toxics by the Environmental Protection Agency are expected to result in significant losses of the nation's coal-generated power, historically the largest and cheapest source of electricity."

Cant exactly see what's so bad about removing that stuff. I sure dont want it in my backyard and breathed by my toddler, your family and area may be different.

Thing is, clean coal can be done and implemented. Even if the generating process is more expensive, the fuel is still dirt cheap.

The other problem is the cost of running peaker plants if there are transients from the renewables.

They alluded to the polar vortex... Anyplace that uses electric heat is going to have more demand that may not have been accounted for, and this WILL drive cost increases. Its easy to play the blame game for political arguments, but natural market forces associated with climate variability may be a major driver...


There's too many buzz words that confuse people.

Polar Vortex ... justa traditional winter. Nothing special.

Clean coal would be nice - but there are a lot of people that believe coal can't be clean. We have a HUGE supply of coal.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Miller88


There's too many buzz words that confuse people.

Polar Vortex ... justa traditional winter. Nothing special.

Clean coal would be nice - but there are a lot of people that believe coal can't be clean. We have a HUGE supply of coal.


No, a winter colder than average can indeed still be a traditional winter... But if it is colder, then energy use of any kind will increase. There are plenty of homes out there heated with resistive electric elements. Imagine what that added use does to demand? And if youre picking it up on a transient basis, the cost to do so is very expensive.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Miller88


There's too many buzz words that confuse people.

Polar Vortex ... justa traditional winter. Nothing special.

Clean coal would be nice - but there are a lot of people that believe coal can't be clean. We have a HUGE supply of coal.


No, a winter colder than average can indeed still be a traditional winter... But if it is colder, then energy use of any kind will increase. There are plenty of homes out there heated with resistive electric elements. Imagine what that added use does to demand? And if youre picking it up on a transient basis, the cost to do so is very expensive.


I agree, but it seems that National Grid, for example, went way overboard raising prices.

People in a neighboring town with an independent power company didn't have increases. If anything, I would have thought they would have a higher percentage since their local power company isn't able to "buy" power and pay for transmission at such a large scale (and discount) as National Grid.

I'm talking about the people that paid 4X for electricity. I could understand 1.5-2X ... but 4X is a bit much.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Cant exactly see what's so bad about removing that stuff. I sure dont want it in my backyard and breathed by my toddler, your family and area may be different.

Thing is, clean coal can be done and implemented. Even if the generating process is more expensive, the fuel is still dirt cheap.


Discussing the science aspect, coal-fired power plants are already being scrubbed and I think that they are as clean as can be expected. What unequivocal science is behind these regulations?

People have to realize there is NO such thing as ZERO risk in any power generation system. Even hydropower and geothermal processes have risks. You cannot converge on a zero risk proposition in any aspect of life. Yet, we seem to expect the power generation industry to do just this.

Is this based on science or some ideological bias?

Yes, as far polar vortexes, they have been with us since the beginning of weather and climate here on Earth.

The other aspect that concerns me is the forced migration to alternative energy sources such as Wind and Solar.

I would LOVE to have an uninterrupted supply of solar and wind power for my electrical energy grid but it is not mature, not evenly distributed, and does not have the power density of coal, gas, or nuclear power generation.

 

[SrDriver]

California has very strict environmental laws.

Simple answer was build power plant about a few miles into Mexico.

Wheel the power into California and sell it there.

Problem solved.

 

[eljefino]

NASA isn't hiring engineers like they were in the 1960's.

Someone needs to keep cracking the whip of improvement. Clean coal/ energy is as good a spot as any.

We need this posse of engineers to inspire the next generation to study hard, and also to have them around for national security reasons.

If we didn't compel them to exist through clean coal regs, we'd have them making better missles for the army, or that new-fangled "Financial engineering" where they invent houses of cards then slither away.

Ok with cleaner coal. Keep reaching for that prize!

 

[sciphi]

Lots of unused/unusable land around. Build/maintain renewables on that land.

Another, more local alternative just may be residential solar. Lots of roofs in this country, and lots of sunlight during the warmer times of the year when demand is highest. Yes, we would still need some conventional generation for times when the sun isn't shining.

Also, it seems like we need to do a better job of tying the grid together, and coordinating power generation better. But that (and residential solar) runs counter to the interest of the dominant utility in the market.

I hate to say it, but moving away from publicly traded utilities to a cooperative model just might be the wave of the future. What's good for quarterly profit isn't necessarily what's good long-term for real people.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Lots of unused/unusable land around. Build/maintain renewables on that land.


There are plenty of down sides here as well. Ivanpah, the world's largest solar facility, is a death trap for wildlife:
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/envi...roject/7448299/


And with a $1.6 billion Federal loan guarantee....
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/ivanpah-and-the-doe-loan-guarantee-program

 

[kschachn]

This borders on laughable. It would require the construction of additional transmission lines and to date, that has been nearly impossible to accomplish. For you to claim it hasn't happened due to running "counter to the interest of the dominant utility in the market" is ludicrous. It is political, pure and simple.

If you had end-point solar generation (residential rooftop photovoltaic), the same wires that supply a dwelling are quite capable of back-feeding the grid. But tell me, who is going to pay for those panels?

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Also, it seems like we need to do a better job of tying the grid together, and coordinating power generation better. But that (and residential solar) runs counter to the interest of the dominant utility in the market.

 

[Shannow]

When looking at coal, the whole package of emissions needs to be looked at.

Pressure on low NOx/mercury removal makes it impossible to recycle the ash into concrete...which means millions of tonnes of ash stored in piles/tailings ponds, and more energy used to make cement powder...a reasonable balance needs to exist around the whole range of emissions to ensure that the maximum benefit/least (mean) harm is produced.

Problem is that interested parties focus on their interest to the exclusion of the discussion.

As to who pays for solar, 500MW of rooftop solar are going in my state every year, $1k/KW, and around 5KW/roof...the homeowner is paying.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
As to who pays for solar, 500MW of rooftop solar are going in my state every year, $1k/KW, and around 5KW/roof...the homeowner is paying.

Looks like people are trying to find ways to put an end to that:

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/.../#axzz2PrANsvRJ

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
This borders on laughable. It would require the construction of additional transmission lines and to date, that has been nearly impossible to accomplish. For you to claim it hasn't happened due to running "counter to the interest of the dominant utility in the market" is ludicrous. It is political, pure and simple.

If you had end-point solar generation (residential rooftop photovoltaic), the same wires that supply a dwelling are quite capable of back-feeding the grid. But tell me, who is going to pay for those panels?


Building small peaking plants is a lot cheaper for the utility to handle additional local demand than building a new transmission line to handle that demand. Less rights of way to secure, fewer towers to build, and lesser risk of that source of power getting damaged when it's needed the most. And, those peaking plants are a lot more lucrative once they are fully depreciated. The net result is a less-stable grid and higher prices for the retail customers.

As Tempest is pointing out, the big utilities don't want residential solar since it threatens their profits.

So, with disincentive to make a more stable grid and every incentive to quash individual efforts to secure more reliable (and cheaper) power, we are in the situation we are in today.

I wasn't aware Ivanpah was such a deathtrap for animals. Remind me to start saving for my own rooftop PV array. It gets full sun from 6 AM - 6 PM most every day so far.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
No, a winter colder than average can indeed still be a traditional winter... But if it is colder, then energy use of any kind will increase. There are plenty of homes out there heated with resistive electric elements. Imagine what that added use does to demand?

Throw some poor insulation in with that, and costs rise. It was a cold winter. My utility bills were up. I'm not surprised by this in the least.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Cant exactly see what's so bad about removing that stuff. I sure dont want it in my backyard and breathed by my toddler, your family and area may be different.

Thing is, clean coal can be done and implemented. Even if the generating process is more expensive, the fuel is still dirt cheap.


Discussing the science aspect, coal-fired power plants are already being scrubbed and I think that they are as clean as can be expected. What unequivocal science is behind these regulations?


Are you denying that coal contains heavy metals and sulfur? Natural gas is pretty darn clean in those, other than odorant which can be easily removed at high loading over Zinc Oxide in dry gas. The equilibria is favorable. Especially if one burns brown coal, its plain to see that it produces a ton of sulfur. Its no guess where it goes and how it comes back to earth. Liquid fuels typically have high sulfur and other metals like vanadium.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
People have to realize there is NO such thing as ZERO risk in any power generation system. Even hydropower and geothermal processes have risks. You cannot converge on a zero risk proposition in any aspect of life. Yet, we seem to expect the power generation industry to do just this.
"Risk" isnt the issue here. Its the matter of spewing large tonnage of metals and sulfur in the air (as well as the potential for particulates). Sure, pollution could be loosely construed as a risk, but given that the processes to clean an otherwise tried and true fuel source that IS inherently dirty exist, its a matter of implementation or not. Building new plants or not.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Is this based on science or some ideological bias?


Are you really denying the chemistry of coal here? I sure hope not.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Yes, as far polar vortexes, they have been with us since the beginning of weather and climate here on Earth.


Point is? IMO this IS the point... It doesnt matter in the slightest if this is a regular thing, irregular thing, or a once in a million. Its simple heat transfer which as a physicist you understand as well as any. Larger Delta T, what happens in the housing envelope? Oh yeah, more losses. So more makeup heat required to keep a certain setpoint inside the home. What happens? More demand???!? Oh the humanity!!

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

The other aspect that concerns me is the forced migration to alternative energy sources such as Wind and Solar.

I would LOVE to have an uninterrupted supply of solar and wind power for my electrical energy grid but it is not mature, not evenly distributed, and does not have the power density of coal, gas, or nuclear power generation.


Agree 100%. The issue of these things being highly transient and without suffcient grid-level storage is a big issue. We know that running smallish gas turbines in peaker plants is very expensive, and that will have to happen more and more without better power management. But who are we kidding? My parents let their AC operation be controlled by the utility in return for an electric discount back in the early 1990s. This isnt new, and the issues with peaking and plant load acceptance/drop times are nothing new. More "noise" in the control signal due to the transient sources is a concern, given that in the name of cost they werent installed with storage. But given that economic growth means access to more and more energy sources and energy, there is economic benefit to building new power systems and sources, and ones that jive with the transient nature of free power can indeed be made. High turndown ratio sources with low SFC at low load can be optimized and built. Its not like the economic benefits of wind arent there. In Iowa, Pop_Rivit mentions extremely low energy costs because of the investment in a lot of wind power... Free source, once capex is considered. Why wouldnt one capitalize upon it?

But still, fuels are here to stay. And coal is cheap and plentiful, but sure is dirty. So clean it and make its use in recuperated, combined cycle plants with scrubbing a reality. Unfortunately folks on both sides are guilty in this, so trying to play blame game is shameful.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: sciphi

Building small peaking plants is a lot cheaper for the utility to handle additional local demand than building a new transmission line to handle that demand. Less rights of way to secure, fewer towers to build, and lesser risk of that source of power getting damaged when it's needed the most. And, those peaking plants are a lot more lucrative once they are fully depreciated. The net result is a less-stable grid and higher prices for the retail customers.

As Tempest is pointing out, the big utilities don't want residential solar since it threatens their profits.

So, with disincentive to make a more stable grid and every incentive to quash individual efforts to secure more reliable (and cheaper) power, we are in the situation we are in today.

The utilities don't want residential solar because the grid is not designed for generation at the end-user voltage level. It was designed to be generated, then the voltage boosted to transmission line level, transported over transmission lines, voltage reduced at the substation, then distributed at distribution voltage level, then voltage reduced to customer utilization level. That's how the transformers and other equipment are designed to work. When you start back-feeding and making transformers essentially "work backwards" you run into problems. Having one person every few neighboorhoods generating 5 kW from his solar panels isn't really a big deal, but when you have hundreds or thousands of kWs being backfed in a system that wasn't designed for it, it's a problem. Distributed generation on a large scale that you're proposing would require significnt engineering changes to the grid. The "peaking plants" you mentioned generate power at the transmission line level, like other large power plants; they're not back-feeding at customer utilization voltage.