Renewable energy isn't that expensive

[pbm]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Many people are willing to pay another 50-100 bucks a month for feel good energy. For energy without pollution. To not worry about the possibility of nuclear accidents. So it might not be that unrealistic.


Did you read what I posted about the inefficiency and waste inherent in building complex coal and nuke plants?


and you have no business imposing your political beliefs on others.


Sure you do. Its called democracy. The philosophy follows the vote of the majority.

Where did you get social studies?





'Democracy' only works when the media is UNBIASED....

 

[zzyzzx]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Many people are willing to pay another 50-100 bucks a month for feel good energy. For energy without pollution. To not worry about the possibility of nuclear accidents. So it might not be that unrealistic.


Many?? I'd like to see the statistics on that! I certainly wouldn’t nor do I know anyone who would. As far as I can tell, most people would throw their mother under the proverbial bus to save a buck on any particular purchase.


Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Did you read what I posted about the inefficiency and waste inherent in building complex coal and nuke plants?


Yes. I used to build them, and at least coal plants are not complicated.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

I think you need to pause before you start deducting the and predicting where the peak and load and cost going and just sit back and calm down. If there are enough EV in the market to make a difference in the load, changing the charging cost will make a difference in the load profile, I'm pretty sure you can agree on that based on what you said.


It isn't really deducting and predicting, more of a logical evaluation of the extension of the current system and trends. I don't live in California, so I can't speak for that market, but in Ontario, our electricity rates have more than doubled since 2006 due to the installation of wind and solar, all of which is heavily subsidized.

Why do you feel I need to calm down? did my post seem like I was biting my nails? I wasn't. We've discussed this subject on here many times

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I'm pretty sure you can also agree that power plants will see whether they can make money or lose money before they decide to shut or build a plant.


Many of these "plants" are not owned by the power companies when we are talking about wind and solar installs. They are owned by private organizations with guaranteed rates and minimum monthly payments regardless of generation backed by the government. This has been playing out in my own backyard since 2006.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Regarding to EV charing at night vs at work, there will be commuters who has to charge at work even at higher cost than at home because their ranges are not as long as their batteries can take them, and the higher cost is still cheaper than bigger battery pack in EV, or gasoline (after the provided benefit like carpool lane), and the higher charge at work cost will still be cheaper than gasoline.


The range on the i3 is 114 miles. The battery holds 33KWh. @ $0.18/KWh, we are looking at $5.94 to drive 114 miles (under ideal circumstances).
The range on the fit is ~375 miles. The tank holds 10.6 gallons. Current gas prices in Dallas are around $2.00/gallon. So $21.20 to drive 375 miles. You can get it even cheaper if you shop around.

This results in it costing $19.54 to drive 375 miles in the i3 with at least three "fill ups" versus the Fit, which costs $21.20, but can do it all on one tank of fuel. Not a big difference.

But let's do the European version of this, since they pay much higher energy and fuel prices:
The range on the i3 is 183Km. The battery holds 33KWh. @ $0.45/KWh, we are looking at $14.85 to drive 183Km
The range on the fit is 604Km. The tank holds 40.1 litres. Current gas prices in Denmark are around $1.62/L. So $65 to drive 604Km.

This results in it costing $49.00 to drive the 604Km in the i3.

In Ontario, it would cost me $35.00 to get 604Km out of the i3. It takes electricity getting to $0.32/KWh for it to be the same price as gasoline. That's not a big leap. We have solar farms being paid $0.42/KWh subsidized rates right now in the province.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So, all of these points together will point to EV charging and residential electric laundry dryer being the best flexible load to keep plants running without a lost.


But the "cheap" power (solar) shuts down at 7PM. The wind is sporadic. This means that the big plants that are historically dumping power at night may potentially no longer be doing so due to increased demand. This will work to "flatten" the rate curve and drive up nighttime electricity prices.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Now if you complain that inexpensive power is gone because plants can maintain a stable output without paying people to take their power and still stay in business, without having to charge a premium at another time to make up for it. I'm not sure if that's really a reasonable demand.


My complaint is that subsidized generation from wind/solar is driving up the rates that consumers pay, whilst the cheap generators like nuclear still only get compensated at the market rate. Our nukes cost us ~$0.065 cents to operate, whilst the solar and wind generators are given lucrative long term contracts with compensation rates in the $0.4x ranges that are locked in for two decades! Because of this, there was a rather significant surge in the installation of these generators in a market that had no demand for additional generation. The result is cumulative expenses that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rates.

If I was paying the 7c/KWh I was back in 2006 and gas prices continued the trend they've been on, I'd be driving a Tesla Model S. The "savings at the pump" so to speak, would be massive. We could have expanded our one nuke plant more than SEVEN TIMES for the amount of money the Ontario government has spent on wind and solar. And the nuke does not receive subsidized rates. That expansion, pegged at $13 billion dollars, was for the fitment of 4800MW of additional generation capacity in the form of 4x CANDU ACR1000 reactors. Instead, the government earmarked $100 billion dollars for wind and solar, something that will never, in the lifetime of all those generators, come even remotely close to matching the output of those CANDU's.

When agenda is in play, common sense is oft tossed by the wayside because something is pushed through under the guise of being for the "greater good" with public opinion oft being completely disregarded. Motivated by money and image, I have a very hard time accepting that they legitimately feel their actions are in any way saving the planet.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It isn't really deducting and predicting, more of a logical evaluation of the extension of the current system and trends. I don't live in California, so I can't speak for that market, but in Ontario, our electricity rates have more than doubled since 2006 due to the installation of wind and solar, all of which is heavily subsidized.

Why do you feel I need to calm down? did my post seem like I was biting my nails? I wasn't. We've discussed this subject on here many times

Many of these "plants" are not owned by the power companies when we are talking about wind and solar installs. They are owned by private organizations with guaranteed rates and minimum monthly payments regardless of generation backed by the government. This has been playing out in my own backyard since 2006.

If I was you I would be very upset too. I would be willing to pay 5-10% above regular cost for renewable/clean energy, even 30-50% is too much not talking about double.

But this was 10 years ago so the solar cost was very expensive compares with current and future cost.

If the third party who supply solar power to Oregon Power company at 4-5 US cents per KWH with these calculations:

After 30% subsidized from Federal government their cost is $X, the life of solar panels are 20 years so they need to get back $X in 20 years, they also need to earn 5% profit every year so they need to get back 10% of $X a year ($X/20 years + 5% profit).

The next step is take average of the sunny days a year of the low 10 years of the last 20 years, multiply the sunny days by 8 hours a day they would have sunny hours a year, multiply this hours with solar power per hour to get the total Y MWH a year.

Now divide $X/10 by Y MWH to get cost per MWH. If there are less sunny days in some years they will have some lost but they will have larger profit if there are more sunshine days some other years.

Oregon Power company will pay 4-5 cents KWH for up to the maximum solar power can generate any given day and nothing for cloudy days.


Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The range on the i3 is 114 miles. The battery holds 33KWh. @ $0.18/KWh, we are looking at $5.94 to drive 114 miles (under ideal circumstances).
The range on the fit is ~375 miles. The tank holds 10.6 gallons. Current gas prices in Dallas are around $2.00/gallon. So $21.20 to drive 375 miles. You can get it even cheaper if you shop around.

This results in it costing $19.54 to drive 375 miles in the i3 with at least three "fill ups" versus the Fit, which costs $21.20, but can do it all on one tank of fuel. Not a big difference.

Comparing operating cost of BMW i3 with Honda FIT isn't a very good comparison. The 2 vehicles cost so much different, BMW i3 is more than $40k before incentive(s) while Honda Fit is less than $20k, and Texas gasoline cost is fairly low, lower than US national average.

I deposit $1k for Tesla Model 3 at $35k, assume I will not get any incentive from US Federal and California governments, this cost of $35k is equivalent with BMW 328i base. From available data my guess is performance/handing of Model 3 is about the same as BMW 328i.

Similar price and performance so comparison is more reasonable. I enter all data into SCE(Southern California Edison) website: https://www.sce.com

Originally Posted By: sce.com/wps/portal/home/residential/electric-cars/
This is what you told us: ZIP Code: 92630

1. Current Daily power usage: 19.77 kWh (average for zip code 92630 Lake Forest)

2. Vehicle type: Battery EV

3. Miles per year: 15,000 miles/year (25 miles/day plus weekend travels to San Diego, Lake Elsinor, Simi Valley ...)

4. Current gasoline price: $3.75 per gallon(average 1st tier premium for the next 5 years), Miles per gallon: 30 MPG(BMW328i)

5. Charging time: Late-evening/Early morning (from 10 PM to 8 AM)

6. Installation Costs: $1,500 (second meter for EV only plan)

Yearly cost:
Gasoline Vehicle: $1,872

EV Residential Plan(any time): $1,740
EV Residential - Time-of-Use Plan: $780
EV Plan(second meter): $828


We don't need to change our current power use habit, just charge the EV with level 2 charger(need install 240 volt outlet) from 10 PM to 8 AM twice a week, most likely Friday and Sunday nights. I believe we can plug in the power plug early but program to start charging at 10 PM.

The saving is substantial at almost $1100($780 vs $1870), plus less maintenance(no oil, ATF, Coolant, differential ...).

Note: Currently rates charged by SCE are 3 or tiers, lowest at 15-16 cents KWH for about 200-250 KWH, between 251(or 201) and 300 KWH the cost goes up to 25 cents KWH ... But they will change to time of use rate starting 2009.

 

[HTSS_TR]

https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/apps/forms/evchargingnotification/

For SCE customers, charging an EV with "The Residential Time-of-Use Plan (TOU-D)" is easiest and least costly if they charge their EV's from 10PM to 8AM, for now. I think other power companies have similar rate plan, provided they have smart meter.

Quote:
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging At Home

Below is a brief description of some residential rate plans.

The Residential Plan (Schedule D) uses a single meter to measure the energy of your entire home, including your electric vehicle charging. As more electricity is used within any billing period, the cost per kilowatt hour increases.

The Residential Time-of-Use Plan (TOU-D) uses a single meter to measure the energy of your entire home, including your electric vehicle charging. This plan offers the lowest rates every day from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., which provides sufficient time to completely charge most Plug-in EVs using standard outlets at Level 1 (120 volts). Low off-peak rates are offered every day from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Higher on-peak rates are on weekdays between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. Many EV customers may see a decrease in their annual cost of electricity on this plan without shifting any of their existing household loads.

The Residential Off-Peak Savings Plan (TOU-D-T) uses a single meter to measure the energy of your entire home, including your electric vehicle charging. This plan offers low rates every day from 6 p.m. to noon. As more electricity is used within any billing period, the cost per kilowatt hour increases. The plan is popular with high-usage and self-generation customers.

The Electric Vehicle Plan (TOU-EV-1) requires a separate meter to measure the energy used to charge your electric vehicle at a different rate than the rest of your home. This plan offers lower rates from 9 p.m. to noon. If you are considering this plan, please be sure to talk to an electrician to understand your out-of-pocket costs in preparing your home for a second meter.

 

[Shannow]

Yep, and when you end up with a largely renewable fleet of generators, that "off peak" electricity will actually be the peak time...it will need that 27c/KWh round trip through the battery storage.

As I keep stating...a fully renewable future is NOT cheap.

You WON'T be charging your tesla at night, as that stored energy will be the most expensive...cheapest will be during the day when the sun is shining, and charging the batteries.

It's an inconvenient truth that people seem to have a hard time grasping...maybe because they believe certain groups who have absolutely no understanding of how grids work.

 

[SHOZ]

The fact that some governments have agreed to pay excessive guaranteed rates is a bit out of line and acerbates the problems. Tax credits and direct purchase price guarantees are two different types of subsidies.

If there is enough power that it needs to be bled off during the day would tell me there is capacity at night for the base loads to handle the assumed charging needs.

I don't see anywhere that a fully renewable system is even being remotely considered at this time.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yep, and when you end up with a largely renewable fleet of generators, that "off peak" electricity will actually be the peak time...it will need that 27c/KWh round trip through the battery storage.

As I keep stating...a fully renewable future is NOT cheap.

You WON'T be charging your tesla at night, as that stored energy will be the most expensive...cheapest will be during the day when the sun is shining, and charging the batteries.

It's an inconvenient truth that people seem to have a hard time grasping...maybe because they believe certain groups who have absolutely no understanding of how grids work.

Recap what I posted above:
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: sce.com/wps/portal/home/residential/electric-cars/
This is what you told us: ZIP Code: 92630

Yearly cost:
Gasoline Vehicle: $1,872

EV Residential Plan(any time): $1,740
EV Residential - Time-of-Use Plan: $780
EV Plan(second meter): $828


Note: Currently rates charged by SCE are 3 or 4 tiers, lowest at 15-16 cents KWH for about 200-250 KWH, between 251(or 201) and 300 KWH the cost goes up to 25 cents KWH ... But they will change to time of use rate starting 2009.


What will happen when SCE change all users to "Time-of-Use" in 2019 I don't know, but as of now the lowest rate is from 10PM to 8AM for SCE's customers in Orange County, California, but to take advantage of this rate I need to fill out a form to change from Residential plan to Time-of-Use plan.

You keep talking about "fully renewable", state of Oregon and most states in US like to reduce/eliminate coal power and increase renewable to certain percentage, but no state is planning to totally eliminate all fossil fuel power plants and substitute it with renewable.

In the case of state of Oregon, when the solar power is on during the day some of the conventional power plant will be idled during those hours and get back online after dusk.

The other case of battery as storage, when you try to compare the cost of power using battery as storage you should compare it with peaker power. The most expensive power is when you need it the most few days a year.

Take Southern California as an example, we have around 10-15 days a year when temperature soars above 90-95F. During those days utility needs to buy power on the spot and this can cost upward 70-80 cents KWH, sometimes it was above $1 KWH. When the cost of battery is below $150-200/KWH installed then it is feasible to use instead of the most expensive peaker power.

As of now and in near future daytime from 7-8AM to 6-10PM is the most power used, nighttime usage is much less. Because most businesses, factories ... are running during the day. Charging millions EV's at nigh does increase the base load somewhat, but it still is much less than daytime.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Many people are willing to pay another 50-100 bucks a month for feel good energy. For energy without pollution. To not worry about the possibility of nuclear accidents. So it might not be that unrealistic.


Many?? I'd like to see the statistics on that! I certainly wouldn’t nor do I know anyone who would. As far as I can tell, most people would throw their mother under the proverbial bus to save a buck on any particular purchase.


Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Did you read what I posted about the inefficiency and waste inherent in building complex coal and nuke plants?


Yes. I used to build them, and at least coal plants are not complicated.


Looking at your profile I find it hard to believe you know anything about them. Coal plants have hundreds of motors and thousands of miles of piping. Many auxiliary systems drawing tens of megawatts. It all has to work in harmony to keep things going. They are complicated when compared to a skid mounted jet engine turning a generator.

They've done pilot programms allowing people to opt for higher cost green energy and they work. People are willing to pay more to do a "good" thing. People buy electric cars when there are much cheaper gas powered cars available.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
You keep talking about "fully renewable", state of Oregon and most states in US like to reduce/eliminate coal power and increase renewable to certain percentage, but no state is planning to totally eliminate all fossil fuel power plants and substitute it with renewable.

In the case of state of Oregon, when the solar power is on during the day some of the conventional power plant will be idled during those hours and get back online after dusk.


You haven't read a word that I've posted the last few months, have you ?

When those thermals are idled, their operating costs are spread across fewer MWh...when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the prices go negative, further hitting the bottom line.

They don't sit around like your linear middle east model and idle everything down for when the wind stops, they close them as they don't make money.

As I've stated repeatedly, South Australia lost it's last coal fired units this year precisely because wind made it uneconomical to run, not due to govt pressure (except in subsidies for wind, and mandatory renewables targets I guess)...that power station is no longer there at peak times, even when it IS needed.

As a result, when the wind slows, that state rocks from 3-4c/KWh to 30c/kWh, peak, off peak, middle of the night, or lunchtime Sunday.

There is no alternative BUT to go for renewables once they push these machines out of the economy....then you need 4 times the nameplate rating and storage...

Is that so hard to get your head around ?

I'm trying to make it as simple as I can, and please also bear in mind, I'm watching that train wreck in real time.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The other case of battery as storage, when you try to compare the cost of power using battery as storage you should compare it with peaker power. The most expensive power is when you need it the most few days a year.

Take Southern California as an example, we have around 10-15 days a year when temperature soars above 90-95F. During those days utility needs to buy power on the spot and this can cost upward 70-80 cents KWH, sometimes it was above $1 KWH. When the cost of battery is below $150-200/KWH installed then it is feasible to use instead of the most expensive peaker power.


The peaker power isn't expensive because it's expensive to generate peaking power, it's expensive because that's what they can charge for it...aforementioned state, the price goes to $13/KWh at times when the wind stops...it doesn't COST $13/MWh, that's what's CHARGED for it...same as for frequency control and ancillary services...they run at 30c/KWh when the market is shot of them.

As to "when the cost of battery is below $150-200/kWh", again, I'll point you to the thread on Levelised cost of storage. You've purposely avoided it for weeks, as it's easier to parrot green sites and their fairy tales.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4141690/Levelised_Cost_of_Energy_Stora

But specifically for "battery" versus "expensive gas peakers"...

Like I said, it's going to get expensive.

Basing your EV purchase (delivery date known yet), and justifying it with what the energy market USED to look like, and ignoring the obviously expensive end result of these "cheap" renewables is either self delusion, or plain stubborn ignorance.

 

[Shannow]

OK, here's what the Australian Energy Market Operator's modelling shows...

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/aemo-modelling-outcomes

Quote:
This study considers two scenarios with differing views about how quickly renewable technologies will develop over time. Accordingly, power systems with differing configurations are expected to emerge in each scenario.

The modelling undertaken presents results for four selected cases, two scenarios at two years, 2030 and 2050. The first scenario is based on rapid technology transformation and moderate economic growth while the second scenario is based on moderate technology transformation and high economic growth. The modelling includes the generation mix, transmission requirements, and hypothetical costs for each.


Quote:
The results indicate that a 100 per cent renewable system is likely to require much higher capacity reserves than a conventional power system. It is anticipated that generation with a nameplate capacity of over twice the maximum customer demand could be required. This results from the prevalence of intermittent technologies such as photovoltaic (PV), wind and wave, which operate at lower capacity factors than other technologies less dominant in the forecast generation mix.


Exactly what I've been saying...while they are disruptive, they push down the prices...when you rely on them, you need multiple times the nameplate rating...my statement is 4, that's thermal/wind, or thermal/solar, but the think tank had "biomass" power stations included.

Quote:
It is important to note that the cost estimates provided in this study do not include any analysis of costs associated with the following:

1) Land acquisition requirements. The processes for the acquisition of up to 5,000 square kilometres of land could prove challenging and expensive.
2) Distribution network augmentation. The growth in rooftop PV and demand side participation (DSP) would require upgrades to the existing distribution networks.
3) Stranded assets. While this study has not considered the transition path, there are likely to be stranded assets both in generation and transmission as a result of the move to a 100 per cent renewable future.
Costs for each of these elements are likely to be significant.



Quote:
Maintaining system security requires supply and demand to be balanced at all times, and preserving this balance can be more challenging in a 100 per cent renewable power system.

Several key renewable energy sources are variable given they depend on weather conditions that vary on several time scales (minutes, daily, seasonally, annually). This means flexible supply and demand options will be required to achieve the balance traditionally provided by fossil fuel generators. Energy storage is likely to be central to providing this flexibility.

AEMO's consultants provided estimates on the availability and costs of five categories of large utility-scale energy storage technologies: batteries; biomass, as solid matter and as biogas; compressed air; hydro, including pumped hydro; and molten salt thermal energy storage associated with CST energy collection.

Based on this information, AEMO modelled a subset of storage technologies, selecting those that provide the required storage flexibility at least cost, and cover periods of high demand or low generation from other sources.

Existing pumped hydro in the NEM was assumed to remain, and the subset selected adds to this a mix of CST with molten salt, biogas (stored in the existing gas systems), biomass, and additional pumped hydro.

Given the chosen mix of generation from diverse sources across the NEM, investment in specific storage solutions such as batteries and compressed air did not emerge as being economic for large-scale deployment and were not included in the modelling.


Quote:
To cover the hypothetical capital and operating cost of generation and storage plant and connections only, wholesale electricity prices in the range of $111/MWh (in Scenario 1 2030) to $133/MWh (in Scenario 2 2050) would be required. These costs are in 2012 dollars. For comparison, this component is over double the average current wholesale electricity spot price of around $55/MWh, Currently many renewable generators receive financial support from outside the electricity market through schemes such as LRET, SRES and feed-in-tariffs. The costs of these schemes have not been estimated and are not included in this comparison.

Additional investment required in new shared network transmission infrastructure would add another $6 to $10/MWh to the above estimates.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

When agenda is in play, common sense is oft tossed by the wayside because something is pushed through under the guise of being for the "greater good" with public opinion oft being completely disregarded. Motivated by money and image, I have a very hard time accepting that they legitimately feel their actions are in any way saving the planet.


Supported by facts as so called "renewable" and/or "Green" energy is forced down our throat whether we need it or not. The only thing these folks are interested in is getting hooked up to the Government's money supply teat!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Quote:
To cover the hypothetical capital and operating cost of generation and storage plant and connections only, wholesale electricity prices in the range of $111/MWh (in Scenario 1 2030) to $133/MWh (in Scenario 2 2050) would be required. These costs are in 2012 dollars. For comparison, this component is over double the average current wholesale electricity spot price of around $55/MWh, Currently many renewable generators receive financial support from outside the electricity market through schemes such as LRET, SRES and feed-in-tariffs. The costs of these schemes have not been estimated and are not included in this comparison.

Additional investment required in new shared network transmission infrastructure would add another $6 to $10/MWh to the above estimates.


Quoted for relevance and the underlined part is exactly what has driven up bills here in Ontario as I have mentioned before.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Quote:
Earlier this year the state passed legislation that requires utilities to stop generating electricity from coal by 2030.At the time, one of Oregon’s two main energy utilities, Pacific Power, predicted that the switch to renewables would come with a fairly high cost, hitting customers with a rate increase of 0.8 percent per year through 2030. That’s a cumulative increase of about 12 percent over the next 14 years.

Since then, however, things have changed. After the legislation passed, Pacific Power put out a request for bids for renewable energy projects, and developers came back with prices much lower than expected.

How low? Try 0.1 percent through the year 2028. That’s not per year, like the previous estimate. It’s the projected rate increase for the entire time period.

Pacific Power spokesman Ry Schwark said this is just the first step and that Pacific Power expects to make additional renewable acquisitions as prices continue to fall. That will be necessary because the coal-free regulations in Oregon also require the state to obtain 50 percent of its energy from renewables by 2040. “There are more things we’ll need to do over the next 20 years to meet that, but as an initial step, this is quite a positive one,” he said.


Oregon Pacific Power is like other utility companies in America, they are operated near monopoly and they are operated under the "Cost Plus" system like others.

This renewable power is mandated by the state, they can easily say that the increase cost to customers will be 20% or 30% or higher the next 20 years and nobody can blame them. They only do what they were told to do.

Why did they lie to the press or to state regulators ? What do they gain lying to the public ? If the whole renewable was proposed by them, then I would see the reason to lie to get it going.

I think most rate-payers are happy with a yearly increase at 1/2 of inflation without any change in the energy sources, and the average inflation over the last 20 year was about 2% a year. Now, take into account changing from the lowest power source (coal) to renewable such as solar and/or wind and the rate of increase is almost zero is hard to believe. But I couldn't see any reason for Pacific Power lied to public.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Why did they lie to the press or to state regulators ? What do they gain lying to the public ? If the whole renewable was proposed by them, then I would see the reason to lie to get it going.


Ahhh Jimmy, again, that article is parrotted across sites like "Take Part", and "Green Energy Investing".

Why the strawman that I'm calling Oregon's Pacific Power "liars" ?

The details in the article are limitied, save that they are buying a bunch of solar, at $50/MWh (5c/KWh)...what are they doing at night ?

What are they doing for frequency regulation, and the basic provision of a voltage/frequency signal for these asynchronous panels to connect to ?

Or does the sun shine 24/7 and there be no cloudless days in Oregon ?

Quote:
How low? Try 0.1 percent through the year 2028. That’s not per year, like the previous estimate. It’s the projected rate increase for the entire time period.


Is that because some of the quotes that I've read are that the costs aren't expected to actually hit until after 2030 ?

 

[firemachine69]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Quote:
Earlier this year the state passed legislation that requires utilities to stop generating electricity from coal by 2030.At the time, one of Oregon’s two main energy utilities, Pacific Power, predicted that the switch to renewables would come with a fairly high cost, hitting customers with a rate increase of 0.8 percent per year through 2030. That’s a cumulative increase of about 12 percent over the next 14 years.

Since then, however, things have changed. After the legislation passed, Pacific Power put out a request for bids for renewable energy projects, and developers came back with prices much lower than expected.

How low? Try 0.1 percent through the year 2028. That’s not per year, like the previous estimate. It’s the projected rate increase for the entire time period.

Pacific Power spokesman Ry Schwark said this is just the first step and that Pacific Power expects to make additional renewable acquisitions as prices continue to fall. That will be necessary because the coal-free regulations in Oregon also require the state to obtain 50 percent of its energy from renewables by 2040. “There are more things we’ll need to do over the next 20 years to meet that, but as an initial step, this is quite a positive one,” he said.


Oregon Pacific Power is like other utility companies in America, they are operated near monopoly and they are operated under the "Cost Plus" system like others.

This renewable power is mandated by the state, they can easily say that the increase cost to customers will be 20% or 30% or higher the next 20 years and nobody can blame them. They only do what they were told to do.

Why did they lie to the press or to state regulators ? What do they gain lying to the public ? If the whole renewable was proposed by them, then I would see the reason to lie to get it going.

I think most rate-payers are happy with a yearly increase at 1/2 of inflation without any change in the energy sources, and the average inflation over the last 20 year was about 2% a year. Now, take into account changing from the lowest power source (coal) to renewable such as solar and/or wind and the rate of increase is almost zero is hard to believe. But I couldn't see any reason for Pacific Power lied to public.



After having suffered a 400%+++ rate increase (and climbing) to a government monopoly for politicking my electricity, yeah, it's about time they started tapering off on the "rate increases". Finding better deals today still does not absolve them of the violation they forced on me yesterday. That's like a rapist excusing himself a year after the fact because you finally were able to sleep with your partner after the original violation.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Oregon is one of few states has good percentage of hydro, up to 42% as of the year 2014. Source: http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/Pages/Oregons_Electric_Power_Mix.aspx

You should know that nighttime power usage is much less than daytime, my guess is nighttime is about 1/5 daytime. Oregon's hydro at 42% of total power is more than enough for used from midnight till 8AM. Solar and wind are only a portion of daytime need, not the total need. Even at 35% renewable(solar and wind) isn't enough for daytime use, other power plants(hydro, nuclear, biomass ...) are still needed.

As of now I didn't see any reason for Oregon Pacific Power to lie about rate increase with current and future cost of solar and wind power. The do not pay penalty for telling the true cost of renewable, and they gain nothing in lying.

How Oregon Pacific Power incorporate unreliable renewable into their daily power supply is something I don't know. How they manage to convert 1/3 of their power from coal to renewable is something they need to figure out before 2030 with minimum extra cost to customers.

According to Oregon Pacific Power website the cost increase is 0.1% one time only, just like what "Take Part" reported.

Quote:
UPDATE AUGUST 23, 2016: Pacific Power will be purchasing the renewable attributes of seven wind and solar generation facilities, six of them new, and four of them in Oregon. These purchases will meet our renewable portfolio standard requirements through 2028. The one-time incremental rate impact is expected to be just 0.1 percent – much lower than the 1 percent annual rate impact estimated earlier.
...
With clear milestones – and plenty of flexibility and time to make this transition – we believe we can move toward a smarter energy future with more renewable energy and very little cost impact.


https://www.pacificpower.net/env/oregon-clean-energy.html

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
You should know that nighttime power usage is much less than daytime, my guess is nighttime is about 1/5 daytime.


Well your guess just about settles it doesn't it ???

Hard to argue with solid facts like that.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It isn't really deducting and predicting, more of a logical evaluation of the extension of the current system and trends. I don't live in California, so I can't speak for that market, but in Ontario, our electricity rates have more than doubled since 2006 due to the installation of wind and solar, all of which is heavily subsidized.

Why do you feel I need to calm down? did my post seem like I was biting my nails? I wasn't. We've discussed this subject on here many times

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I'm pretty sure you can also agree that power plants will see whether they can make money or lose money before they decide to shut or build a plant.


Many of these "plants" are not owned by the power companies when we are talking about wind and solar installs. They are owned by private organizations with guaranteed rates and minimum monthly payments regardless of generation backed by the government. This has been playing out in my own backyard since 2006.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Regarding to EV charing at night vs at work, there will be commuters who has to charge at work even at higher cost than at home because their ranges are not as long as their batteries can take them, and the higher cost is still cheaper than bigger battery pack in EV, or gasoline (after the provided benefit like carpool lane), and the higher charge at work cost will still be cheaper than gasoline.


The range on the i3 is 114 miles. The battery holds 33KWh. @ $0.18/KWh, we are looking at $5.94 to drive 114 miles (under ideal circumstances).
The range on the fit is ~375 miles. The tank holds 10.6 gallons. Current gas prices in Dallas are around $2.00/gallon. So $21.20 to drive 375 miles. You can get it even cheaper if you shop around.

This results in it costing $19.54 to drive 375 miles in the i3 with at least three "fill ups" versus the Fit, which costs $21.20, but can do it all on one tank of fuel. Not a big difference.

But let's do the European version of this, since they pay much higher energy and fuel prices:
The range on the i3 is 183Km. The battery holds 33KWh. @ $0.45/KWh, we are looking at $14.85 to drive 183Km
The range on the fit is 604Km. The tank holds 40.1 litres. Current gas prices in Denmark are around $1.62/L. So $65 to drive 604Km.

This results in it costing $49.00 to drive the 604Km in the i3.

In Ontario, it would cost me $35.00 to get 604Km out of the i3. It takes electricity getting to $0.32/KWh for it to be the same price as gasoline. That's not a big leap. We have solar farms being paid $0.42/KWh subsidized rates right now in the province.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So, all of these points together will point to EV charging and residential electric laundry dryer being the best flexible load to keep plants running without a lost.


But the "cheap" power (solar) shuts down at 7PM. The wind is sporadic. This means that the big plants that are historically dumping power at night may potentially no longer be doing so due to increased demand. This will work to "flatten" the rate curve and drive up nighttime electricity prices.

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Now if you complain that inexpensive power is gone because plants can maintain a stable output without paying people to take their power and still stay in business, without having to charge a premium at another time to make up for it. I'm not sure if that's really a reasonable demand.


My complaint is that subsidized generation from wind/solar is driving up the rates that consumers pay, whilst the cheap generators like nuclear still only get compensated at the market rate. Our nukes cost us ~$0.065 cents to operate, whilst the solar and wind generators are given lucrative long term contracts with compensation rates in the $0.4x ranges that are locked in for two decades! Because of this, there was a rather significant surge in the installation of these generators in a market that had no demand for additional generation. The result is cumulative expenses that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher rates.

If I was paying the 7c/KWh I was back in 2006 and gas prices continued the trend they've been on, I'd be driving a Tesla Model S. The "savings at the pump" so to speak, would be massive. We could have expanded our one nuke plant more than SEVEN TIMES for the amount of money the Ontario government has spent on wind and solar. And the nuke does not receive subsidized rates. That expansion, pegged at $13 billion dollars, was for the fitment of 4800MW of additional generation capacity in the form of 4x CANDU ACR1000 reactors. Instead, the government earmarked $100 billion dollars for wind and solar, something that will never, in the lifetime of all those generators, come even remotely close to matching the output of those CANDU's.

When agenda is in play, common sense is oft tossed by the wayside because something is pushed through under the guise of being for the "greater good" with public opinion oft being completely disregarded. Motivated by money and image, I have a very hard time accepting that they legitimately feel their actions are in any way saving the planet.


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Based on the California scenario this is what is going on right now:

The government mandate 20% of the energy is from renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro), that includes the home roof top solar being subsidized and / or power purchase agreement, etc.

EV is federal subsidized at $7500 / car and some people (not all) get additional savings due to low income status. Leaf is typically leased at around $200 / month by people commuting 60-80 miles a day, and get to charge at work for about 2-4 hours per day (there are too many EVs), and most importantly, get to ride carpool lane with just the driver. This carpool lane privilege is the reason why people gets EV, not because EV is cheaper to drive or save the earth, free electricity at work is just an icing on the cake. Sure, gas cost $2.5-3/gal today vs 20c/kwh at lower tier, but it is really the carpool lane sticker that saves people 1 hr of commute time a day that deserves the premium. I would not be surprised if the free charging at work is partly to keep the demand up so solar is not driving the fossil fuel plants out of business.

No one is talking about going 100% renewable, because it wouldn't work. Even as liberal as California the government mandate is only 20%, no guaranteed 40c/kwh, and residential is already offering (not mandate) time based rate. People who install roof top solar typically only install just enough to cover their higher tier rate (i.e. they only install enough so they are paying the first 200kwh at 16-24c/kwh but not the last 100kwh at 40-60c/kwh, so they install only 100kw on the roof). Even then I still don't see solar panel on most residential roof top.

My PG&E smart rate plan is around 16c/kwh during normal time and 60c/kwh during smart days from 2-7pm, for 15 smart days per summer. If I am not on Smart rate my flat rate would have been 2c/kwh more, any time of the day every day. This leads me to believe that at some point PGE is paying 60c/kwh during those days. With some used Leaf selling for as low as $7000 here, I would think it make sense to buy and drive a used Leaf, charge at work, and sign up for Smart rate plan, and if you have some money to play with, install a small solar panel on your roof.

They also just build a new gas peaker at Lodi, supposedly with fast ramp up (a couple hours) and around 50% efficiency, at around $1300/kw.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/10/131031-flex-power-plants-california/

http://www.powermag.com/topplantslodi-energy-center-lodi-california/?pagenum=2

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
No one is talking about going 100% renewable, because it wouldn't work. Even as liberal as California the government mandate is only 20%, no guaranteed 40c/kwh, and residential is already offering (not mandate) time based rate. People who install roof top solar typically only install just enough to cover their higher tier rate (i.e. they only install enough so they are paying the first 200kwh at 16-24c/kwh but not the last 100kwh at 40-60c/kwh, so they install only 100kw on the roof). Even then I still don't see solar panel on most residential roof top.


Actually new law requires 50% renewable by 2030. This requirement will be costly to rate payers.

Originally Posted By: mercurynews.com
Brown signed a law last year requiring that the state's utilities produce 50 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources by 2030.


http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_30...ars-solar-power

Originally Posted By: greentechmedia.com
How Much Energy Storage Would Be Needed for California to Reach 50 Percent Solar?

If California wants to continue increasing its share of solar power on the grid, it will need greater capacity to store it. The question remains: how much?

A new study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory attempts to quantify the answer. The authors model several scenarios in which the California grid generates 50 percent of its power from solar by 2030. To do so will require some pretty major changes, including more flexible baseload generation, as well as more deployment of electric vehicles, exports to other states and demand response.


Originally Posted By: greentechmedia.com
Those can only go so far, though. To meet the 50 percent photovoltaic threshold economically will require energy storage. The state already has 3,100 megawatts of pumped storage, with 1,325 megawatts of additional storage set to be deployed by 2020, per the state mandate. Under the most optimistic flexible grid scenario and with PV prices falling rapidly to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, California will need another 15 gigawatts of storage by 2030.

That’s more than 11 times the amount mandated currently in California, and 66 times the total megawatts deployed in the U.S. last year. And any delays in the price declines of solar, or the rollout of EVs, or the flexibility of conventional power plants, will raise the bar on the amount of storage required.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/r...each-50-Percent