Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cost comparisons of renewables vs conventional power production is difficult. Nobody has included the cost of fossil fuel back-up for the renewables in the calculations which would raise the price of renewables considerably.
"Wind and solar are intermittent because the wind doesn’t always blow at the right speed and the sun doesn’t always shine. According to Hall, et al. (2014), good EROI calculations for solar and wind are not available at this time. This is largely because solar and wind are highly dependent upon fossil fuel backup and are essentially “subsidized by” higher EROI fossil fuels and exactly how to account for this is not known. According to Hall, et al. (2014):
“Alternatives such as photovoltaics and wind turbines are unlikely to be nearly as cheap energetically or economically as past oil and gas when backup costs are considered. … Any transition to solar energies would require massive investments of fossil fuels. Despite many claims to the contrary—from oil and gas advocates on the one hand and solar advocates on the other—we see no easy solution to these issues when EROI is considered.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/...t-is-the-cost/
That article goes on to describe how a turn to renewables is driving industry out of Germany and reducing the standard of living there, and how reducing the cost of energy improves the standard of living throughout the world.
You are telling only part the German story. The Germans accelerated their nuclear plant shut down timeline in reaction to the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011. This ill advised plan forced the Germans to now rely on coal as backup to solar instead of nuclear. Where they where once an exporter of power due to nuclear, they are now an importer of power from coal.
America has officially entered the “coal cost crossover” – where existing coal is increasingly more expensive than cleaner alternatives. Today, local wind and solar could replace approximately 74 percent of the U.S. coal fleet at an immediate savings to customers. By 2025, this number grows to 86 percent of the coal fleet.
This analysis complements existing research into the costs of clean energy undercutting coal costs, by focusing on which coal plants could be replaced locally (within 35 miles of the existing coal plant) at a saving.
The city of Seattle now gets 1% of it's electricity from coal, but in the suburbs, Puget Sound Energy gets 1/3 of the electricity from a coal plant that it owns in Montana. Most days, here on the waterfront in Seattle we see a long train go by loaded with coal.
Why can't we go gung-ho on oil production here, sell it domestically for $1 a gallon like in the middle east, and charge the rest of the world the equivalent of $3-5 a gallon?
"Global demand" means nothing for domestic pricing when you're the country producing it. The only reason domestic prices would be inflexible is poor export sales or leadership so shrewd they squeak when they walk.
Until it gets cold anyway. During the severe cold at the end of January, wind farms all over North Dakota shut down, as it was too cold for them to run. Even worse, they actually added a 2MW load to the system to keep them warm. Minnesota had their wind farms fail also. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122535/print
On the morning of January 30, in the MISO region wind was only providing 4% of generation, while coal was making 45%, gas, 26%, and nuclear 13%. How do wind and solar "win" when they fail at times reliable power is needed most, and coal is providing four and a half times more power?
The city of Seattle now gets 1% of it's electricity from coal, but in the suburbs, Puget Sound Energy gets 1/3 of the electricity from a coal plant that it owns in Montana. Most days, here on the waterfront in Seattle we see a long train go by loaded with coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by historyfan
That might be export to Asian markets coal.
All of that coal is going to the steam plant in Centralia, a 1340MW plant built in the early 1970s.
Until it gets cold anyway. During the severe cold at the end of January, wind farms all over North Dakota shut down, as it was too cold for them to run. Even worse, they actually added a 2MW load to the system to keep them warm. Minnesota had their wind farms fail also. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122535/print
On the morning of January 30, in the MISO region wind was only providing 4% of generation, while coal was making 45%, gas, 26%, and nuclear 13%. How do wind and solar "win" when they fail at times reliable power is needed most, and coal is providing four and a half times more power?
A pleasure to read your post.
Don't forget Xcel telling their gas customers/home owners during the polar vortex to turn their thermostats down to or below 63°F because of their inadequate gas system.
Many of those promoting wind are NOT aware of the percentage of wind turbines that do not operate from November to April due to cold weather alone. Cold season packs are not the norm on turbines and the energy needed to keep turbines running in extreme cold are currently not economically feasible. Then there is the whole discussion of wind and cold. Historically, wind decreases as cold (especially extreme cold) weather descends.
Coal very much has a place in America as a reliable and cost effective source of energy.
Last edited by CentralUSHomeowner; 03-27-2019 at 09:49 PM..
Don't forget Xcel telling their gas customers/home owners during the polar vortex to turn their thermostats down to or below 63°F because of their inadequate gas system.
The infrastructure to deliver gas to where it's needed has not kept pace with demand. A lot of the same people cheering on the decline of coal will be lining up to protest new pipelines. Same thing happened in 2014, since then a lot of the plants in the northeast implemented tech so they could use oil to operate them in the event the gas supply became problematic.
Until it gets cold anyway. During the severe cold at the end of January, wind farms all over North Dakota shut down, as it was too cold for them to run. Even worse, they actually added a 2MW load to the system to keep them warm. Minnesota had their wind farms fail also. https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060122535/print
On the morning of January 30, in the MISO region wind was only providing 4% of generation, while coal was making 45%, gas, 26%, and nuclear 13%. How do wind and solar "win" when they fail at times reliable power is needed most, and coal is providing four and a half times more power?
If wind & solar are now so cheap, why do the areas that rely most heavily on them have the highest prices for energy?--Because they need to keep the coal/gas/nuclear plants going as back-up: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/...-so-expensive/
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
The infrastructure to deliver gas to where it's needed has not kept pace with demand. A lot of the same people cheering on the decline of coal will be lining up to protest new pipelines. Same thing happened in 2014, since then a lot of the plants in the northeast implemented tech so they could use oil to operate them in the event the gas supply became problematic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
