New Englands back on burning Oil for power

peakbagger Posted By peakbagger, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:16 AM

  1. vtwoodheater

    vtwoodheater
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 1, 2015
    95
    29
    Loc:
    central VT
    What are we progressing to? We invented a carbon footprint. Burn whatever you want, you can't make energy from nothing.
    Coal is dirty, shut them down.
    Fight natural gas pipelines for whatever reason.
    Burn natural gas or oil for a couple of months, it's better than what we were doing.
    Wind power is ugly and just a supplement.
    Solar is a freaking joke. doesn't matter which way you spin it.
    Nuclear power makes steam and hot water in a river.

    Whatever you choose, has a consequence/reaction. The way I look at it: If you don't like the noise from airplanes. don't buy a house next to the airport.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    rowerwet and jackatc1 like this.
  2. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198

    Ummm

    Solar is not ajoke... it powers my car, heats my house, and provides a nice little income

    Wind I hear sometimes powers all of texas

    And to compare the side effect wind and solar to the thousand year waste products of nuclear or the acid rain of the midwest coal plants is to lack perspective in the serious consequences of some power choices
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    sloeffle and spirilis like this.
  3. vtwoodheater

    vtwoodheater
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 1, 2015
    95
    29
    Loc:
    central VT
    Solar works on an individual basis. I was thinking more along the lines of the country with 350 million inhabitants. You have solar panels, so I understand your soft spot for them.
    How much did they cost? Do you own/drive the one electric vehicle as your sole mode of transportation? Sounds like you are lucky enough to live in a state where you can sell back power, that's good. GMP in VT does not work like that.

    My father in law blew $20K on a solar array that only gives him a $85 credit a month on his power bill all year. I could have lowered his power bill more than that by using $20K to install energy efficient upgrades and insulation to his house. I was able to convince him to install a variable speed pool pump.

    I don't mind wind power. I think the turbines are kind of cool looking.

    I wasn't trying to argue or debate any form of power over the other, I was just pointing out it made no sense to burn oil to generate power. Seems no better than coal or nuclear.

    BTW, why is everyone so dead against small hydro projects?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    jackatc1 likes this.
  4. Marshy

    Marshy
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 29, 2016
    741
    214
    Loc:
    NY
    Results are in at the EIA. Record breaking demand for NG.

    "During the recent cold weather event that affected much of the eastern United States, more natural gas was withdrawn from storage fields around the country than at any other point in history. Net withdrawals from natural gas storage totaled 359 billion cubic feet (Bcf) for the week ending January 5, 2018, exceeding the previous record of 288 Bcf set four years ago."

    "Consumption of natural gas in the residential and commercial sectors reached 452 Bcf during the week ending January 5, compared with 348 Bcf during the previous week, according to estimates from PointLogic Energy. PointLogic Energy estimated that total weekly natural gas consumption in the Lower 48 states increased by 150 Bcf, reaching 961 Bcf for the week ending January 5. Another 29 Bcf and 21 Bcf were exported by pipeline to Mexico and as liquefied natural gas (LNG), respectively."

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34512
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. Marshy

    Marshy
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 29, 2016
    741
    214
    Loc:
    NY
    What state do you reside?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198
    Massachusetts

    So far there is ~$10k in the srec account and another $2k credit from the electric company. I have not paid an electric bill since the first panels went in ~4 years ago

    I added the electric car and the heat pump to absorb some of that $2k production credit.,.... The $10k is mine to spend as I like


    Its not much... but its better than mumbling about the electric bill
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. peakbagger

    peakbagger
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 11, 2008
    3,755
    958
    Loc:
    Northern NH
    Hard to beat the former Mass program, those who got in on it hit the jackpot. Lots of developers made a bundle putting in solar field where ever they could. The standard recommendation in Mass is you are far better doing solar as otherwise you are paying for your neighbor to put it in
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    rowerwet likes this.
  8. vtwoodheater

    vtwoodheater
    Member 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 1, 2015
    95
    29
    Loc:
    central VT
    I looked over my FIL power bill a month or two back. He actually generated more KWH's than he used.
    BUT: GMP only pays him half of what they charge per KWH, and then only half of your total bill can be offset. It is a scam.

    Who pays for the KWH's produced by the arrays in Mass? The power companies, or the state?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198

    That used to be the way it was in Massachusetts (not exactly, but in the screw the solar customer sense). About 4 years ago the town started promoting solar, which had incredible deals for new panels ( net metering, srec), so I took down the old, and put new ones up

    I believe the electric company makes both the kwh payments and the srec payments, not the state


    The payback has changed.. The original panels 4 years ago were SREC 1, I mounted a few more over the shed under SREC 2 (no payments yet) , now the rules have changed again. Act quick.. my understanding is if you can connect before March 18,, you fall under thesrec 2 rules
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. peakbagger

    peakbagger
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 11, 2008
    3,755
    958
    Loc:
    Northern NH
    Mass SRECs are ultimately paid for by whoever buys power in Mass. The state sets a required percentage of every mWhr sold in the state that has to be produced "renewably". Inside this percentage are "carve outs". I have not looked up the latest numbers but lets use a 20% of the power sold has to be "renewable" (I think its around 23% and is going up slowly). The accounting for this is kept cleaner by creating RECs (Renewable Energy Creidts)which are the renewable attributes associated with 1 MWh of power produced renewably. So if the utility sells 100 regular mWh to consumers they need to prove that they either produced 20 MWh with renewables or they need to buy RECs. The state has decided they want to encourage Solar inside the state so inside that 20% figure they do carve outs and decide that a certain percentage of the RECs have to be produced by solar produced in Mass. So of that 20% REC requirement there is requirement that some percentage is produced with by solar. Lets keep it simple and use 1% (I think Mass is higher.). So when the utility trues up the numbers at the end of the year they either have had to produce 1 mWh of solar or buy equivalent SRECs from others. There is a shortage of renewable power production capacity in the region (because its expensive to build) and also a shortage of solar produced in Mass. This would put the utility in a bind as no matter how much they paid for SRECs, they couldn't fulfill the SREC percentage. The state has set an Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) which is an effectively a penalty payment that the utility can pay to make up the difference. The ACP is set quite high and that effective sets the maximum amount the SRECs can get up to. Mass has set these quite high, the first round was $448 (per MWH)and the second round was $350 , they are both filled out and there is new program in place.

    The state changes the rules every couple of years and future SRECs may go down or other "carrots" can be put in place. The big carrots coming soon is giving a bonus for grid support. They may set a high ACP for putting battery or other storage on line and may pay a bonus if the system can do grid support which is providing low voltage ride through or frequency. Currently gird tied inverters are designed to shut down when the grid voltage or frequency gets out a tight range. In areas with high renewable production that can cause a lot of problems. If there is a temporary imbalance in the system, usually a transmission line tripping or possibly a power producer tripping, there is mismatch between the amount of generation with the amount of demand on the system. In this case the voltage and frequency can start to dip and that can cause large PV arrays to shut down making things worse. A new style PV inverter (1741 sa) is now coming out that can be designed to continue producing power during low voltage events and can actually change the power factor of the power produced to boost the frequency. The state may give special incentives for this capability. They state also wants to encourage large batteries as they can ask power consumers to go on their batteries during short periods of high demand.

    Note that in all of this the utilities are just the middleman, they are guaranteed a profit by the state so all these payments dont come out of their pockets, they just add a surcharge to the power they sell Effectively the state is just putting a tax on people who still buy power from the grid and handing it over to producers.

    By the way, in theory once a home owner sells their SRECs, they are no longer can claim they are green. Despite that they have solar panels on their roof, they have sold the right to claim they are green. Somewhere there is fossil power plant putting out CO2 and other pollution that can run because the homeowner sold his SRECs to them. Most people can not or do not want to understand this and obviously marketers conveniently forget to mention this. In other states like NH, the solar carve out is set low and the ACP is also set low. Many folks elect not to sell SRECs as the revenue barely covers the costs to sell them but in Mass the SRECs are so darn lucrative that most folks get over the fact that they sold their solar bragging rights and enjoy the checks.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Marshy likes this.
  11. OhioBurner©

    OhioBurner©
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Aug 20, 2010
    1,518
    206
    Loc:
    Center of Ohio
    My company got into solar a year or so ago, but even on the utility scale with ~10MW solar farm it isn't very profitable and takes up a huge area as compared to fossil power. It's more of a proof of concept and perhaps gains them some green credits and helps in PR. It also provides little to no ancillary services to the grid, frequency support, regulation, reserves, etc. And like someone else mentioned they have a habit of tripping out often, they are on the more local distribution grid which have more line operations and transients, as apposed to the more robust transmission grid. But perhaps a small step in the right direction.

    I don't follow New England, but even around here last week the nat gas prices in the PJM system were crazy high, some of our gas plants offer curves were 10x (or more) more expensive than typical and were getting picked up in the day ahead market! There were a couple days there where most of our generation units were base loaded around the clock, coal plants never came down from full load even in the early AM load valley. No oil burners in our fleet though (and all of our coal burners are emission controlled now, the older non controlled units have all been shut down).
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. peakbagger

    peakbagger
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 11, 2008
    3,755
    958
    Loc:
    Northern NH
    Definitely keep an eye on the new 1742 SA standard. Its not the PV going down as much as little ripples in power grid that a person rarely notices. When we work with customers to install local CHP generation we remind them numerous times that the grid is not as good as they think. The protective relaying on the switchgear will detect minor grid issues and will island the plant even when no one noticed the ripple.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. jackatc1

    jackatc1
    Feeling the Heat 2.
    NULL
    

    Aug 15, 2011
    348
    146
    Loc:
    Port Crane ny
  14. begreen

    begreen
    Mooderator 2.
    NULL
    
    Staff Member

    Nov 18, 2005
    71,754
    10,583
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    From one blog to another Shepstone is a questionable source.
    Natural Gas Now is “owned and managed by Shepstone Management Company” run by Tom Shepstone, a former Energy In Depth employee. EID is a shale gas industry front group created in 2009 by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA).


    From its first days online, Natural Gas Now has devoted vast bandwidth to “Gasland.” In 2011 — back when Shepstone worked as a campaign manager for EID-Marcellus — Natural Gas Now had a section of its website linking to numerous websites claiming to debunk the Academy Award-nominated film.

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/09/18/naturalgasnoworg-energy-in-depth-tom-shepstone-gasland-study
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  15. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198
    Solar sophistry

    Just who issues "the right to claim they are green"? The Massachusetts general court , the epa, the dpw, the registry of deeds, the good lord himself... I'd like to know.

    If I make such a claim, do I violate criminal or civil law.. Can you cite the governing statue? Will I incur a fine?Is there possibility of jail time? Is this covered by contact law?

    Just to be clear, in case the jackbooted green right police are monitoring, I never claimed to be green, turquoise maybe, with a hint of chartreuse, but never green.

    Otherwise a very informative post.
    ...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Marshy likes this.
  16. peakbagger

    peakbagger
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 11, 2008
    3,755
    958
    Loc:
    Northern NH
    The concept is when you sell a SREC to a non green fossil plant be it gas or coal you are allowing it to produce a MWH of dirty energy that they could not have produced had they not bought the SREC. VT got in trouble and almost lost certification of their SRECs as they were selling SRECS and also claiming they were running the state on renewable power. In some ways its where you draw the control boundary. If you draw it at your property boundary you are green but if you draw it around Massachusetts you are not green anymore as you sold the rights to claiming green to some other power plants.

    That is the hassle with climate accounting, Its the tragedy of the common, unless you somehow monetize the cost of dumping in the common private self interests will degrade the common. Europe is known to turn up their noses at the US with respect to climate but there carbon trading market is propped up primarily by sketch carbon credits they buy in the third world.

    I think most folks agree with your opinion.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    woodgeek likes this.
  17. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198
    Lets do the count.. no srec, 1 mwh of dirty power, or 100% dirty power

    With srec, 1 mwh of dirty power and 1 mwh of clean power, so, on average 50 %clean power

    Let's call it greenish ;)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  18. Marshy

    Marshy
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Dec 29, 2016
    741
    214
    Loc:
    NY
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    4,056
    810
    Loc:
    SE PA
    All I know is that when I lived somewhere with rolling blackouts, and two sides pointing fingers....it was a third party manipulating the ISO rules to create a shortage and make a bunch of moola.

    This was LA in 2000, and the third party was Enron.

    Sounded EXACTLY like this chit....claims of govt incompetence, blockage by NIMBYs and eco groups, etc. And it was Enron the whole time. If the bros hadn't been caught on tape laughing their azzes off about the grandmas in the valley sweating without their AC, they might have gotten away with it.

    NIMBYs are a real thing....but everywhere else in the US manages to build out their gas and power grids....follow the money.

    Who makes money on the shortage? And who makes money on the new pipeline?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198
    You are not the only one who thinks enron redux..


    https://www.utilitydive.com/news/eversource-avangrid-artificially-constrained-gas-pipeline-capacity-for-yea/507018/

    A new academic analysis argues gas utility subsidiaries of Avangrid and Eversource have artificially constrained gas pipeline capacity in New England for years, driving up natural gas and electricity prices and potentially violating federal laws...



    At the same time that Avangrid and Eversource were engaging in capacity withholding, “these same companies with other affiliates were in front of our commission asking us to approve billions of dollars of additional pipeline capacity,” the former Maine regulator said.....

    David Littell
    Former Commissioner, Maine PUC
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  21. woodgeek

    woodgeek
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jan 27, 2008
    4,056
    810
    Loc:
    SE PA
    Indeed. We have discussed in another thread recently. My sis works at Eversource....and has heard nothing of this, of course.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  22. peakbagger

    peakbagger
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 11, 2008
    3,755
    958
    Loc:
    Northern NH
    Compartmentalization is the word, if someone was playing the market the company would have a very small group that would be doing it and someway to have plausible deniability if they get caught.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    woodgeek likes this.
  23. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198
    Here is the eia summary

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/

    "he bomb cyclone weather event in early January 2018 resulted in record levels of U.S. natural gas demand and elevated wholesale natural gas and power prices around the country as reported in a special EIA analysis. A constrained natural gas pipeline network led to a significant increase in oil-fired and dual-fuel generation in New England and New York, and, to a lesser extent, in the Mid-Atlantic."

    main.png
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    coutufr likes this.
  24. peakbagger

    peakbagger
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Jul 11, 2008
    3,755
    958
    Loc:
    Northern NH
    In theory Mass just upset the apple cart in New England by deciding to bet the farm on Canadian Hydro generation via Northern Pass in NH. Very soon after the Northern Pass announcement, one of the competing projects that didnt get picked, another 1000 MW transmission line from Canada through western maine announced they were going to do their project anyhow. This project is backed by Iderola a large spanish company through their ownership of CMP and NGrid (a large English corporation) is making noises that they will build a third line. All of sudden 3000 MW of power lines into New England will change the power market dynamics considerably (until some terrorist figures out a pickup truck and a couple of hunting rifles can shut that part of the grid down pretty darn quick).
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  25. georgepds

    georgepds
    Minister of Fire 2.
    NULL
    

    Nov 25, 2012
    723
    198

    I think you can say that of any transmission line. The difference here is that the proposed line will carry a significant fraction of the energy into Massachusetts. I don't know how resilient ISO NE is to the failure of any one line. Somewhere they must think about this problem
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...

Share This Page