Separate names with a comma.
Posted By begreen,
Jan 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM
Must not be big enough.. they are paying $126 /mwh in NY and only $27/ mwh in Quebec
Bump for a refresh, i added info.
Jump to the 13:00 minute mark for an explination of congestion.
Congestion just means the wires are at capacity .. Still sounds like they need another HVDC line
Well, congestion and lack of infrastructure prevent the flow of power and that is why you see cheap power in the western and northern regions while the price downstate it 3X that.
Something tells me these guys will be back to this, if not reversing this decision (which is binding), then getting around it somehow. The State of the Union would serve as a powerful drum to talk up coal and nuclear again, putting pressure on Congress to follow thru on campaign promises to bail them out. If nothing gets done, the administration can then blame congress for not acting.
Dave Roberts is at it again. There is a good article in this thread about an energy CEO talking RE on a conference call with investors.
It's cheaper to buy an new windmill or solar farm than it is to run an existing coal or nuclear plant.
From the vox article
First, the headline numbers. Here are the costs Robo anticipates “early in the next decade”:
Unsubsidized new wind: 2.0-2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour
Unsubsidized new solar: 3.0-4.0 cents per kilowatt-hour
Variable operating costs of existing coal or nuclear plants: 3.5-5.0 cents per kilowatt-hour
On a movie side note, I just watched the Cloverfield Paradox (really bad) and the main reason for the plot in the movie is that in the near future earth is running out of energy so they have to create some kind of space laser to generate power... blah blah blah. In the back of my mind a voice from the Greenroom kept repeating, Why can't they just put up solar panels and be done with it?
This is only a draft memo that has been leaked, but if true and implemented, is pretty, shall we say, anti-free market.
The move would force grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear power plants. The added cost would be passed on to the consumer, I guess.
Invoking national security as justification is BS. Same excuse is being abused for tariffs.
For several reasons. The implication that gas and renewables are less secure is baloney. Actually with a smart grid system a diverse and diffused power structure can be more secure. If security is the main concern then why are we not diversifying and building modern grid infrastructure instead of propping up legacy plants that are money losers? The tariffs may actual be a threat to national security as they heighten tensions between other nations and America. Economic security is not the same as national security. Now the cat is out of the bag and the US has set precedent for other nations to make the same claim of national security when there is not that threat.
Nuke is debatable but no way on coal. With the exception of New England, natural gas storage and availability is pretty well not constrained so the best backup power is currently natural gas peakers along with combined cycle natural gas plants. Both peakers and combined cycles can also run off light fuel oil far cleaner than a coal plant and supply is limited to how many tanks you want to have on site. The only way coal makes sense is to spend several billion dollars a plant to build IGCC plants fueled by coal. For those billions its far better to deploy far cheaper gas plants for higher reliability as they can be distributed around. IGCC plants are also base load plants that don't start up and shut down quickly.
Meanwhile, technology keeps moving forward.
Re natural gas storage in new england
Granted there is not much, but there is always the tank with sister Kent's rainbow swash
can you find ho ho ho chi min in the swash?
Doesn't this plant work, in part, because there are nearby, oil fields that use the co2 ?
The Allam Cycle is a new, high-pressure, oxy-fuel, supercritical CO2 cycle that generates low-cost electricity from fossil fuels while producing near-zero air emissions; all CO2 generated by the system is produced as a high-pressure, pipeline-ready by-product for use in enhanced oil recovery, industrial processes, or sequestration.
Carbon sequestration technology is pretty well developed for gas cycles, what the sticking point to date has been where to sequester it. Fossil well reinjection is definitely a proven way to go, the problem is technically the infrastructure needs to be in place and its expensive. Iceland also has had some promising success with sequestering CO2 in boreholes but it requires living on top of a unique unstable geology to be able to do it. There already is a major issue that many recent oil wells flare natural gas (methane with many times the GWP as CO2) as the local infrastructure isn't in place to capture it and recover it. There were new standards put in place to require more capture but believe the current administration got rid of them or delayed them.
The current reality is that many of the technical solutions for global warming have been in place for awhile, its the political and economic drivers that are lacking. Doesn't help when many conservatives believe in the end times and that any day or year now they will get pulled up into heaven and will let the unbelievers sort out the chaos they left.
Like the article says, hundreds of new gas fired powered plants are going to be built to meet demand, and this may be an option to mitigate CO2 in the future. At least it looks like the damn things works. And there seems to be an alliance forming between the gas and renewable industries against coal and nuclear.
re "Doesn't help when many conservatives believe in the end times and that any day or year now they will get pulled up into heaven and will let the unbelievers sort out the chaos they left."
Slightly off topic, but this belief must wreck havoc with retirement planning.
Financial demographics would seem to indicate otherwise.
Anybody else notice Powelson announced he is stepping down?