Peaker plants are obsolete in a state that has multiple brown outs every single summer eh? Really?
No one can take you seriously when you say such absurd things.
Did you see the tweet I posted. Batteries now supply nearly all the peak evening demand. Thankfully they are cheaper and more reliable than crappy natural gas peakers so even less brownouts.
Renewable energy is a sham. You lie when you say Texas builds renewable energy facilities. Texas does NOT do that. Various woke ESG companies from out of state build those facilities in Texas because the supreme Court has ruled that states like Texas are not permitted to regulate commerce in their own state - they must give licenses to phony out of state business.
Did you see the tweet I posted. Batteries now supply nearly all the peak evening demand. Thankfully they are cheaper and more reliable than crappy natural gas peakers so even less brownouts.
They are not cheaper.
The main battery energy storage in use in California today is Lithium Ion (like Vistra 500kV and the AES Alamitos project). They cost on the order of $150/kWh and were built almost exclusively with tax payer funds. This is about 30x the cost of power from natural gas turbines. They use them because they were legislated to do so, not because of cost. In all honesty, ignoring the sunk first cost of building the plant, it costs more to maintain the batteries than it does to build and run a gas turbine plant. As far as reliability, I know vistra has had at least two prolonged shutdowns due to issues with the cooling system, so batteries are far from the panacea you are attempting to make them out to be. Reverse rust are theoretically on the order of $20/kW (and that is about as low as they can get, as steel making is a process that won’t get much less expensive), but has a massive issue with charging efficiency and have yet to be demonstrated in a large capacity.
Renewable energy is a sham. You lie when you say Texas builds renewable energy facilities. Texas does NOT do that. Various woke ESG companies from out of state build those facilities in Texas because the supreme Court has ruled that states like Texas are not permitted to regulate commerce in their own state - they must give licenses to phony out of state business.
Oh Really? Can you link the Supreme Court case that decided that specific issue here?
The main battery energy storage in use in California today is Lithium Ion (like Vistra 500kV and the AES Alamitos project). They cost on the order of $150/kWh and were built almost exclusively with tax payer funds. This is about 30x the cost of power from natural gas turbines. They use them because they were legislated to do so, not because of cost. In all honesty, ignoring the sunk first cost of building the plant, it costs more to maintain the batteries than it does to build and run a gas turbine plant. As far as reliability, I know vistra has had at least two prolonged shutdowns due to issues with the cooling system, so batteries are far from the panacea you are attempting to make them out to be. Reverse rust are theoretically on the order of $20/kW (and that is about as low as they can get, as steel making is a process that won’t get much less expensive), but has a massive issue with charging efficiency and have yet to be demonstrated in a large capacity.
$150/kWh fixed costs? What're the operating cost differences? Surely discharging a battery is baseline cheaper than buying and burning natural gas.
I don’t think this is because of the energy generation at all, no?
Isn’t most of it liabilities for fires, etc and general mismanagement? I don’t think renewables are really the cause here. Correct me if I’m wrong
You’re wrong.
Joey you’re incredibly biased against clean energy for some reason so I’ll need some evidence for you. This article claims its cost of transmission (fires etc) and the fact that household solar was improperly priced. They’ve ended up changing the rates on solar buyback because they really don’t need more solar during the day.
Doesn’t look like energy is more expensive because renewable energy is.
PG&E customers pay 80% more than national average. Costs are falling disproportionately on a customer base that’s already struggling to pay their bills.
The main battery energy storage in use in California today is Lithium Ion (like Vistra 500kV and the AES Alamitos project). They cost on the order of $150/kWh and were built almost exclusively with tax payer funds. This is about 30x the cost of power from natural gas turbines. They use them because they were legislated to do so, not because of cost. In all honesty, ignoring the sunk first cost of building the plant, it costs more to maintain the batteries than it does to build and run a gas turbine plant. As far as reliability, I know vistra has had at least two prolonged shutdowns due to issues with the cooling system, so batteries are far from the panacea you are attempting to make them out to be. Reverse rust are theoretically on the order of $20/kW (and that is about as low as they can get, as steel making is a process that won’t get much less expensive), but has a massive issue with charging efficiency and have yet to be demonstrated in a large capacity.
Someone should tell Texas the ecnomics make no sense. What are they doing!!
“When households adopt solar, they’re not paying their fair share,” Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state’s electric grid for much of their power consumption — without paying for its fixed costs like others do.
The way to alleviate the fixed costs recovered in the volumetric charges, the power company should have a much higher fixed customer charge, maybe around $40/month. Then the solar customers will pay their fair share of fixed costs and don't have very much charged on a volumetric basis. And lower income people would pay the $40/month fixed charge but pay a much lower volumetric charge per kWh for their actual usage.
And if solar residential customers don't feel they should pay the $40 fixed charge, they can go off grid and buy their own battery storage system.
“When households adopt solar, they’re not paying their fair share,” Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state’s electric grid for much of their power consumption — without paying for its fixed costs like others do.
The way to alleviate the fixed costs recovered in the volumetric charges, the power company should have a much higher fixed customer charge, maybe around $40/month. Then the solar customers will pay their fair share of fixed costs and don't have very much charged on a volumetric basis. And lower income people would pay the $40/month fixed charge but pay a much lower volumetric charge per kWh for their actual usage.
And if solar residential customers don't feel they should pay the $40 fixed charge, they can go off grid and buy their own battery storage system.
Agreed. And CA adjusted the rates to pay back WAY less for solar during the day since excess solar with no storage is wasted right now. Makes sense to incentivize battery installs so you can sell back at night.
“When households adopt solar, they’re not paying their fair share,” Fowlie said. While solar users generate power that decreases their bills, they still rely on the state’s electric grid for much of their power consumption — without paying for its fixed costs like others do.
The way to alleviate the fixed costs recovered in the volumetric charges, the power company should have a much higher fixed customer charge, maybe around $40/month. Then the solar customers will pay their fair share of fixed costs and don't have very much charged on a volumetric basis. And lower income people would pay the $40/month fixed charge but pay a much lower volumetric charge per kWh for their actual usage.
And if solar residential customers don't feel they should pay the $40 fixed charge, they can go off grid and buy their own battery storage system.
Agreed. And CA adjusted the rates to pay back WAY less for solar during the day since excess solar with no storage is wasted right now. Makes sense to incentivize battery installs so you can sell back at night.
I would say don't oversize your system, so you don't have any excess kWh to sell back to utility at night. I generated the energy on-site and I am keeping all my kWh for my use.
The main battery energy storage in use in California today is Lithium Ion (like Vistra 500kV and the AES Alamitos project). They cost on the order of $150/kWh and were built almost exclusively with tax payer funds. This is about 30x the cost of power from natural gas turbines. They use them because they were legislated to do so, not because of cost. In all honesty, ignoring the sunk first cost of building the plant, it costs more to maintain the batteries than it does to build and run a gas turbine plant. As far as reliability, I know vistra has had at least two prolonged shutdowns due to issues with the cooling system, so batteries are far from the panacea you are attempting to make them out to be. Reverse rust are theoretically on the order of $20/kW (and that is about as low as they can get, as steel making is a process that won’t get much less expensive), but has a massive issue with charging efficiency and have yet to be demonstrated in a large capacity.
$150/kWh fixed costs? What're the operating cost differences? Surely discharging a battery is baseline cheaper than buying and burning natural gas.
Not really. At least not with lithium. Lithium batteries cost quite a bit to maintain, you have to replace them frequently and you are have to consider the time value for money.
Joey you’re incredibly biased against clean energy for some reason so I’ll need some evidence for you. This article claims its cost of transmission (fires etc) and the fact that household solar was improperly priced. They’ve ended up changing the rates on solar buyback because they really don’t need more solar during the day.
Doesn’t look like energy is more expensive because renewable energy is.
I’m against subsidies. They create an Artificial demand that is not sustainable. They cut the subsidy because they are producing more than the grid can support at certain times of day (because they made the subsidy so high that there was a mass adoption in a short period of time). What this achieved was creating a momentary boom coupled with a monumental crash for those in the solar PV industry in California.
Joey you’re incredibly biased against clean energy for some reason so I’ll need some evidence for you. This article claims its cost of transmission (fires etc) and the fact that household solar was improperly priced. They’ve ended up changing the rates on solar buyback because they really don’t need more solar during the day.
Doesn’t look like energy is more expensive because renewable energy is.
I’m against subsidies. They create an Artificial demand that is not sustainable. They cut the subsidy because they are producing more than the grid can support at certain times of day (because they made the subsidy so high that there was a mass adoption in a short period of time). What this achieved was creating a momentary boom coupled with a monumental crash for those in the solar PV industry in California.
If you are running a solar business and see a crazy rate of installs and reimbursements that are obviously too high to make sense, then you'd better do some good long term planning.
If you think the gravy train is never going to end and are caught off guard, that's your fault.
The subsidies for CA did the intended task of converting nearly the entire grid to solar during day time hours. That's a tremendous boost in clean energy and clean air. Now that that is done, the payments scheme has changed.
If you thought CA was going to keep subsidizing solar installs w/o batteries far past the true demand... that's poor business sense and your business probably doesn't deserve to make it.
For me, it’s scholarship type athletes. If you were good enough to get a decent college scholarship for Athletic’s you’re sub elite. Time wise that would be around:
1:54
4:14
8:30
14:45
30:30
these are around the ic4a standards for track.If you run these times you can get some money at a D1 or D2 school as well. Other then big college invites times like these will win a lot of college invites and or be one of the best runners on the team of a non power 5 or major D1 school. Runners like these won’t go pro but they will have a decent time in college and will get some scholarship.
1--TX produces a bunch of oil and gas. does TX have cheap power? no. exactly.
2--are you unfamiliar with dry holes? with the reasons we now frack, eg, the cheaply removable oil/gas is now largely tapped? this is no longer cheap, stick a straw in the ground oil.
3--along those lines, cheap oil/gas is now virtually impossible. it's uneconomic for them to extract oil below a fairly high price. when the price of oil drops below $40-50/barrel, which is the production costs, it's not in their interests to drill. that is the "floor" for oil now. oil is no longer going to be cheap energy.
solar/EV/wind etc. are being subsidized because a fossil fuel economy in a few decades will create chaos. akin to ignoring covid until it overflows everything.
pretending we don't make oil cheaper through tax loopholes is a fib. after the winter storm TX passed all sorts of bills to try and make LNG cheaper or subsidize it while making renewables pay more. this thread is along those lines. it reminds me of my in-law talking about wind hydraulic leaks when we all know about BP or the exxon valdez. it's handing out of context talking points to people who can't or won't make accurate comparisons of risk or cost.
OH is not TX. it's on a larger grid. ergo someplace sunnier can produce the power for that grid.
the better arguments are like large winter storms where it's less easy to borrow from one place to heat another, if the storm is a big line from TX to PA. and storage.
but in terms of oil and gas being cheap power, that went away with cheap easily drilled oil. it should hint at something when it's like, can i frack, can i drill that national animal sanctuary of frozen tundra, can i get a permit for an offshore platform. we're talking subsidies, you think any of that is cheap? you could give them every giveaway they want and cheap oil isn't coming back. if the price of crude tanks they lay off workers and stop developing. so we no longer get cheap gas.
people fundamentally don't get the tension in the US economy where we do well as a country when energy is cheap -- cheap power, cheap transport -- you can run a household or business cheaper for the same amount of energy -- but oil and gas goes in a spiral.
it's odd for the anti-inflation folks to be proponents of an energy source that is never again going to be cheap. maybe has to do with which side listens to petro lobbyists more.
I’m against subsidies. They create an Artificial demand that is not sustainable. They cut the subsidy because they are producing more than the grid can support at certain times of day (because they made the subsidy so high that there was a mass adoption in a short period of time). What this achieved was creating a momentary boom coupled with a monumental crash for those in the solar PV industry in California.
If you are running a solar business and see a crazy rate of installs and reimbursements that are obviously too high to make sense, then you'd better do some good long term planning.
If you think the gravy train is never going to end and are caught off guard, that's your fault.
The subsidies for CA did the intended task of converting nearly the entire grid to solar during day time hours. That's a tremendous boost in clean energy and clean air. Now that that is done, the payments scheme has changed.
If you thought CA was going to keep subsidizing solar installs w/o batteries far past the true demand... that's poor business sense and your business probably doesn't deserve to make it.
The lowly installers and college kids they had knocking on doors are likely all broke and among the people fleeing the state.
$150/kWh fixed costs? What're the operating cost differences? Surely discharging a battery is baseline cheaper than buying and burning natural gas.
Not really. At least not with lithium. Lithium batteries cost quite a bit to maintain, you have to replace them frequently and you are have to consider the time value for money.
per kWh implies fixed cost. I was asking if you had comparable numbers for installation and operation of gas peaker plant. You can just say "no"
Looks like $133 per MWh LCOS for Lithium storage. Roughly 20-30% cheaper LCOS than gas peaker plants.
Battery storage can be a significantly cheaper and more effective technology than natural gas in providing peaking capacity, according to a new study released by the Clean Energy Council, the industry group which represents A...
Levelized Cost of Energy & Storage 2020 analyses are in-depth studies comparing the costs of energy and storage technologies for different applications.
