Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 624437 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Destroying the Myth of cheap wind and solar
« Reply #1300 on: April 04, 2024, 03:26:18 PM »
https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap-wind-and-solar/

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-03-at-5.39.26-PM.png

[LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy is a measure that includes some costs and omits others in order to show a desired, misleading result.]

LCOE estimates can make wind and solar look cheap, so long as you ignore most of the costs of integrating them on to the grid and backing them up.

Comparing LCOEs makes sense when examining reliable, dispatchable power plants because these power plants can be turned on or off to meet electricity demand. It makes very little sense when you start including intermittent and weather-based energy sources that don’t provide the same value as thermal generators.

The intermittency of wind and solar imposes unique expenses on the electric grid that require an evaluation of the entire electric system in order to derive meaningful cost estimates from these generators. This is difficult to do, which is why most people don’t do it.

Our modeling attempts to provide this apples-to-apples comparison of running a reliable grid with dispatchable energy sources like coal, natural gas, and nuclear versus that of intermittent facilities like wind and solar. In every case, the answer is clear: wind and solar are by far the most expensive.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Re: Destroying the Myth of cheap wind and solar
« Reply #1301 on: April 04, 2024, 05:01:14 PM »
https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap-wind-and-solar/

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-03-at-5.39.26-PM.png

[LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy is a measure that includes some costs and omits others in order to show a desired, misleading result.]

LCOE estimates can make wind and solar look cheap, so long as you ignore most of the costs of integrating them on to the grid and backing them up.

Comparing LCOEs makes sense when examining reliable, dispatchable power plants because these power plants can be turned on or off to meet electricity demand. It makes very little sense when you start including intermittent and weather-based energy sources that don’t provide the same value as thermal generators.

The intermittency of wind and solar imposes unique expenses on the electric grid that require an evaluation of the entire electric system in order to derive meaningful cost estimates from these generators. This is difficult to do, which is why most people don’t do it.

Our modeling attempts to provide this apples-to-apples comparison of running a reliable grid with dispatchable energy sources like coal, natural gas, and nuclear versus that of intermittent facilities like wind and solar. In every case, the answer is clear: wind and solar are by far the most expensive.

An understandable and damning piece, Doug. Any idea what the difference between “natural gas CC” and “natural gas CT” is? Substantial cost difference shown in the graph and I’m trying to account for it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1302 on: April 05, 2024, 07:23:02 AM »
I had the same question while posting that.

From the links below:
"Natural gas can be burned to produce electricity in a traditional combustion turbine (CT) power plant or a more modern and efficient combined cycle (CC) power plant.

A combined cycle power plant is a modern electrical generating plant that captures the energy from burning natural gas in two ways.

First - the gas turbine burns fuel and generates electricity:
The gas turbine compresses air and mixes it with fuel.
The mixture is ignited, creating an explosion that propels the very hot gas through the turbine.
The hot gas spins the gas turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The fast-spinning turbine shaft drives a generator that converts the spinning energy into electricity.
Second - the steam turbine utilizes the waste heat from the gas turbine exhaust that would otherwise escape through the exhaust stack to create additional electricity:
A heat exchanger captures exhaust heat from the gas turbine and boils water to create steam.
The steam spins the steam turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The steam turbine shaft drives a generator that delivers additional electricity.
This is the most efficient type of fossil fuel power plant. By combining these two systems, the overall net efficiency of the combustion process can be increased by 50 - 60 percent. Thus, from an overall efficiency of about 35% in a single cycle system one can achieve to an overall efficiency of 50-60% in a combined cycle system.

Either a single shart or multiple shaft configuration can be used for the combined cycle plant. In a single shaft system, the gas and steam turbines turn a common shaft with a single generator. This is the most efficient configuration. However, in larger plants it is more economical to have multiple gas turbines and a single steam turbine.

For large-scale power generation, a typical gas/steam turbine set would be a 270 MW gas turbine coupled to a 130 MW steam turbine giving a total of 400 MW. A typical power plant might consist of between 1 and 6 such sets. GE currently manufactures the largest gas turbine available at just over 500 MW."

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=15

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=9
« Last Edit: April 05, 2024, 08:07:16 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1303 on: April 05, 2024, 08:07:55 AM »
I had the same question while posting that.

From the links below:
"Natural gas can be burned to produce electricity in a traditional combustion turbine (CT) power plant or a more modern and efficient combined cycle (CC) power plant.

A combined cycle power plant is a modern electrical generating plant that captures the energy from burning natural gas in two ways.

First - the gas turbine burns fuel and generates electricity:
The gas turbine compresses air and mixes it with fuel.
The mixture is ignited, creating an explosion that propels the very hot gas through the turbine.
The hot gas spins the gas turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The fast-spinning turbine shaft drives a generator that converts the spinning energy into electricity.
Second - the steam turbine utilizes the waste heat from the gas turbine exhaust that would otherwise escape through the exhaust stack to create additional electricity:
A heat exchanger captures exhaust heat from the gas turbine and boils water to create steam.
The steam spins the steam turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The steam turbine shaft drives a generator that delivers additional electricity.
This is the most efficient type of fossil fuel power plant. By combining these two systems, the overall net efficiency of the combustion process can be increased by 50 - 60 percent. Thus, from an overall efficiency of about 35% in a single cycle system one can achieve to an overall efficiency of 50-60% in a combined cycle system.

Either a single shart or multiple shaft configuration can be used for the combined cycle plant. In a single shaft system, the gas and steam turbines turn a common shaft with a single generator. This is the most efficient configuration. However, in larger plants it is more economical to have multiple gas turbines and a single steam turbine.

For large-scale power generation, a typical gas/steam turbine set would be a 270 MW gas turbine coupled to a 130 MW steam turbine giving a total of 400 MW. A typical power plant might consist of between 1 and 6 such sets. GE currently manufactures the largest gas turbine available at just over 500 MW."

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=15

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=9

Thanks! My quick search mostly returned “closed caption” or “Connecticut” hits so I quit wading through the results. Your deep dive into it here is appreciated?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
Concrete Problems
« Reply #1304 on: April 06, 2024, 04:27:53 PM »
I know, in the name climate change let’s battle CO2 by leveling balsa forest carbon sinks for wind turbine blades, all supported by ton after ton of concrete which out-gasses huge amounts of CO2 both in its production and while it cures. That’ll fix the planet: 

https://the-pipeline.org/thicker-than-concrete-dumber-than-dirt/?fbclid=IwAR37W4c8U5AUnidHRR7vEk_JlOgafBDZ32WDnUo77ze-QQAp62WeYtSP2Ds

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
FO: Chinese dumping of solar panels
« Reply #1305 on: April 08, 2024, 04:17:29 PM »
(2) INDUSTRY WARNS NEW SOLAR PANEL TRADE WAR COMING: The American Clean Power Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association said a major U.S. solar manufacturer will file a petition with the Biden administration, urging the government to investigate solar panel dumping in the U.S. market by Asian manufacturers.

At least one major U.S. solar wafer maker, CubicPV, scrapped plans for a U.S. factory, citing “a dramatic collapse in wafer prices.”
Why It Matters: China is using trade tactics to corner the solar wafer market, which it has used in other key infrastructure sectors, including port cranes, to undermine the U.S. domestic industry. Biden administration loans and grants to build a domestic green energy industry are effectively giving money to the Chinese government since U.S. battery, electric vehicle, and solar makers are reliant on Chinese components and supply chains. The Biden administration is putting pressure on the Chinese tech industry over semiconductors but is signaling reluctance to take stronger steps against China on trade in other industries. – R.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
WSJ: Texas gets a scare
« Reply #1306 on: April 16, 2024, 10:03:10 AM »
Texas Gets a Spring Energy Scare
The Lone Star State power grid is already swooning and it’s only spring.
By
The Editorial Board
April 15, 2024 5:36 pm ET


Summer is two months away, yet the Texas power grid is already swooning. On Friday the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot) asked power generators to postpone scheduled maintenance early this week “to help alleviate potential tight conditions” as temperatures rise into the not-so-sizzling 80s.

The grid typically has excess power-generating capacity in the spring owing to mild weather. There’s also an abundance of solar and wind power. This is why plants go off-line for repairs in the spring to prepare for the summer when electricity use surges as people ramp up the air conditioning.

Yet merely warm spring weather is now enough to push the Texas grid to the brink. Tuesday’s high is forecast to be 89 degrees in Dallas and 84 in Houston. These temperatures shouldn’t force grid operators to break a sweat to keep the lights on, but they are.

One culprit is skyrocketing electricity demand from population growth, new data centers and manufacturing plants. A surge in Bitcoin prices has also made cypto-mining more profitable. Many miners located servers in Texas because—get this—they can arbitrage grid crunches to get paid to reduce power usage.

Data centers accounted for about 2.5% of U.S. electricity in 2022 and are expected to make up more than 20% by 2030. Artificial intelligence is magnifying this demand. A web search uses less than one watt of power while an AI-powered search can require 100 watts. Training an AI search uses around 1,000 watts.

The spring grid S.O.S. doesn’t augur well for the summer or the rest of the country. The past winter was one of the mildest on record, which eased the growing strain on the grid. Yet this summer is forecast to be one of the hottest, which means Americans will almost certainly be told to conserve power to prevent outages—i.e., don’t plan on plugging in your Tesla after getting home from work.

One risk is that power-plant maintenance that is delayed or canceled will lead to more plants failing in the summer when they are needed. Better get that emergency generator while it’s still in stock.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
But of course , , ,
« Reply #1307 on: April 23, 2024, 07:38:22 AM »
BTW oil has dropped $3-4 in the last few days.

FO:

(1) BIDEN WILL KEEP IRAN OIL FLOWING DESPITE SANCTIONS BILL: Capital Alpha Partners director Jim Lucier said, “Oil traders are nonchalant because they know Biden will certainly sign whatever waivers are necessary to keep Iranian oil flowing into the market just as he is keeping Russian barrels flowing into the market.”

A person familiar with the matter said the Biden administration is still analyzing the Iran sanctions bill, but no impact on oil markets is expected before the fall.

According to Clearview Energy Partners, the sanctions bill, if implemented, would increase global oil prices by $8.40.

Why It Matters: The Biden administration is focused on maintaining energy price stability ahead of the election and is more likely to pursue sanctions against Iran in other sectors like military production to prevent global oil price fluctuations. The Biden administration ran into similar issues with sanctions against Russia, and economic interdependence means the U.S. economy will be impacted by sanctions against foreign adversaries that produce energy or other critical inputs. – R.C.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18600
    • View Profile
More coal regulations
« Reply #1308 on: April 25, 2024, 07:25:47 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/long-term-coal-power-plants-must-control-90-of-their-carbon-pollution-new-epa-rules-say/ar-AA1nDvbv?ocid=msedgdhphdr&cvid=6946e73529e24cafbe2e75acd0cc8dc2&ei=25

" all while "supporting the long-term reliable supply of the electricity needed to power America forward."   :roll:

"Together, the rules are expected to spur up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades"   :roll:

promises, promises.........


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
They Ain’t Banking on Net Zero No More
« Reply #1309 on: May 09, 2024, 04:27:20 PM »
« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 01:45:48 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #1310 on: May 10, 2024, 07:41:31 AM »


(3) RED STATE COALITION BRINGS LAWSUIT AGAINST CLEAN POWER PLAN: West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is leading a coalition of 25 states in a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently finalized “Clean Power Plan 2.0” rule on carbon emissions set to shut down coal power plants.

Morrisey will ask the court to stay the EPA’s rule, preventing it from taking effect while the suit proceeds.

Why It Matters: A stay against the “Clean Power Plan 2.0” rule would pause the clock on the 60 legislative day window, increasing the likelihood a possible Trump administration and Congressional Republicans could strike down the rule using the Congressional Review Act. The Biden administration has raced to get these rules in place and requires a future Trump administration to slog through the years-long rule-making process to reverse rules that are very likely to increase energy prices and decrease reliability. – R.C.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2023
    • View Profile
“Inform, but Not Prescribe”
« Reply #1311 on: May 13, 2024, 01:24:53 PM »
Well this is refreshing to see:

TODAY

More Honest Climate Science?

By James Freeman

Maybe scientific journals are ready to move past the era of politicized pronouncements.

Follow the WSJ in Apple News

A plague of our age is the abuse of scientific credentials to advance political ideologies. But maybe there’s hope that establishment scientific journals will now chart a different path. Giving cause for fresh hope is Nature magazine’s publication of a comment by Ulf Büntgen of the University of Cambridge, who writes on the importance of distinguishing scientific discovery from political advocacy:

… I am foremost concerned by an increasing number of climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Like in any academic case, the quest for objectivity must also account for all aspects of global climate change research. While I have no problem with scholars taking public positions on climate issues, I see potential conflicts when scholars use information selectively or over-attribute problems to anthropogenic warming, and thus politicise climate and environmental change. Without self-critique and a diversity of viewpoints, scientists will ultimately harm the credibility of their research and possibly cause a wider public, political and economic backlash.

Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization. In fact, there is just a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action. (Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements, which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive. Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate change to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public. It is also utterly irrational if activists ask to “follow the science” if there is no single direction. Again, even a clear-cut case like anthropogenically-induced global climate change does not justify the deviation from long-lasting scientific standards, which have distinguished the academic world from socio-economic and political spheres.


Even scientists convinced that human activity is warming the planet should be careful to acknowledge the limits of current knowledge. Mr. Büntgen continues:

… I find it misleading when prominent organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest summary for policymakers, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2000 and even 125,000 years. The quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st century against reconstructed long-term climate means of the Holocene and before. Like all science, climate science is tentative and fallible. This universal caveat emphasises the need for more research to reliably contextualise anthropogenic warming and better understand the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate system at different spatiotemporal scales. Along these lines, I agree that the IPCC would benefit from a stronger involvement in economic research, and that its neutral reports should inform but not prescribe climate policy.

Ensuring honest research is the most important reason to separate scientific investigation from policy-making. But there are other compelling reasons, especially when it comes to the study of the climate.  Even if one believes pessimistic scenarios on the course of world temperatures, it does not immediately follow that the most costly responses currently recommended by activists will be the most sensible and effective.

https://apple.news/Acq5amdEYSM-pYk7yQjcfDQ

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Energy Economics, Cognitive Dissonance of the Biden Left
« Reply #1312 on: May 14, 2024, 03:32:27 AM »
This is from Dec. 2022, WSJ, (sorry I don't have access to quote more of it). 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-turns-the-us-into-a-shadow-member-of-opec-supply-profit-taxes-domestic-production-cartel-energy-11670966873

"President Biden has urged the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production of oil and criticized the cartel harshly when it declines to do so—most recently on Dec. 4. But actions speak louder than words. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has been acting as shadow member of the cartel.

America has committed itself to constrain its own supply through regulations and legislation, which has enabled OPEC to achieve record profits. The White House response to higher cartel profits was to double down by proposing a profit tax that would further limit U.S. supply. The new House Republican majority could help consumers by blocking further cartel-enabling policies."

-----------------------------

What I'm looking for is a recent quote where Biden criticizes/attacks OPEC for curtailing supply, driving up oil prices, hurting the American economy (and his chances of reelection), but the above will do.  Still true.

Curtailing supply is his policy, starting with canceling the Keystone XL pipeline his first hour in office.  Curtailing supply drives up prices, he accidentally spoke truth.  That was the point, make it harder to produce gas and oil across the land.
 Trying to get Americans to choose some other form of energy such as EVs, which also run on the fossil fuels that power our grid was a waste of good money since he hasn't done jack to replace fossil fuel grid energy with carbon free nuclear, even though it was finally in the Dem platform in 2020 after being AWOL for 48 years.

This admission is an Econ 101 breakthrough for Democrats led slow sleepy Joe.  Curtailing supply drives up prices.  Who bleeping knew, and it's exactly what he has done, and everyone knows that result, or at least the 80% who disapprove of prices of everything increasing under Biden.

He did it.  He knows it, and he tried to cover it up with his massive release of the Strategic Midterm Petroleum Reserve, but how many times can he release what he never replenished?  He's running out of tools to cover up the damage he's done to the economy, consumers, voters and the energy sector.

The only way he could fix it (ironically) would be to adopt Republican policies and it's late in the game for that.

It isn't that one gallon of gas went up $1.50.  It's the number on the credit card bill accumulating every time you fill up - if you work for a living or have any other reason to require mobility.  It's costing you thousands more per year when you figure in all of the impact.  Thousands you don't have for other spending and thousands you're not adding to your savings.  Thousands on carry forward credit card debt for millions, plus 24% compounding interest.

The amount you pay over and above true energy cost is a tax.  A tax on people making less than 400k per year, exposing a lie.  All for what??  We constrain our consuming on a path to going broke while China and India build and open more coal plants.  Total emissions are UP.

Did anyone notice cheap flights are mostly gone as well, and rich Democrats like to travel while the rest of us work.  He's hurting his own people.

Someone tell what we gained from all the unnecessary pain.  Pricing us out of energy is not how you clean the planet.  Prosperity is.  When you have more abundance and more prosperity you can work on higher pursuits.  Richer countries have always been cleaner.  cf. the mess we found in East Germany during reunification and the plastic flowing through the rivers of Africa and Asia today.

If we had abundant nuclear energy, the push for electrifying transportation might have worked.  Instead it's just one more costly, unpopular Dem failure.

Under Obama Biden, we are a state sponsor of terror and a de facto member of OPEC.  And like Putin we frame and jail our opponents.  And call it "democracy".
« Last Edit: May 14, 2024, 04:02:36 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69662
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1313 on: May 14, 2024, 04:51:26 AM »
The Prog Green Leap Forward policies drive up revenues to Russia and Iran.

Trump is dead on with this and I suspect part of his intended leverage with Putin re Ukraine is to remind him of how he (Trump) is about to drive Russian oil and gas revenues down dramatically.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18366
    • View Profile
Energy Politics: State-run Refineries - "on the table"
« Reply #1315 on: May 16, 2024, 11:27:26 AM »
https://instapundit.com/647805/

What happens in California - comes quickly to other states and to the nation.

Why wouldn't we have state-run refineries, we have state-closed one, don't we?

Begs the question, in what circumstance would an oil refinery not be able to turn a profit - with people paying $7/gal for gasoline?  They used to make a profit when gas was 29.9 cents.

[Answer:  Being regulated out of business.]

https://www.10news.com/news/fact-or-fiction/fact-or-fiction-california-gas-station-charging-7-per-gallon

911 Dispatch:  We'll have an ambulance right out to you ma'am, right as soon as he finds a charging station.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2024, 11:34:12 AM by DougMacG »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18600
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1318 on: Today at 07:48:12 AM »
watch the greens and thus the Dems go nuts over this.