Showing posts with label Energy policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy policy. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

California’s Blackouts Display The Results Of Kamala Harris’s Favored Energy Policy

California’s Blackouts Display The Results Of Kamala Harris’s Favored Energy Policy



As I watched a senior citizen check out of Home Depot with a small generator being pushed by an employee. It exemplified unintended consequences of environmental policies.  Instead of efficient centralized energy production we now have tens of thousands if not millions of people producing their own energy with gasoline, propane or natural gas. All these generators are significantly less efficient then industrial energy production. They are the neo Luddites of the Green New Deal.

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Michael Moore stumbles upon the truth about so-called 'green' energy.

Michael Moore stumbles upon the truth about so-called 'green' energy

Michael Moore is worried about Earth, although he's not focused on fossil fuel and cow farts.  Instead, he's worried because he just discovered that green energy is a scam.  That's the point in his new documentary, Planet of the Humans, which was released Tuesday for free on YouTube.  In a long and poorly written introduction on the YouTube page, the people who made the video explain that the green revolution could have worked out if only the whole movement hadn't sold itself out to the rich and powerful, resulting in a sham and a scam.
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement's answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.
Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, "green" illusions, that are anything but green, because we're scared that this is the end — and we've pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?
No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine"). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way — before it's too late.
It turns out that Moore, despite hectoring Americans to get with the green program, had managed to be completely unaware of the practical problems with green energy:
Moore said that he, like many people, thought electric cars were a good idea, "but I didn't really think about where is the electricity coming from?"
"I assumed solar panels would last for ever. I didn't know what went into the making of them," Moore added, referring to raw materials, including quartz, and the fossil fuels needed to manufacture the panels.
Moore illustrates the bubble in which greenies float.  If he'd had intellectual curiosity, he would have known that electric cars get power from natural gas, oil, or coal (some of which is clean burning and some not), which means they merely displace vehicle emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant.  Electric car batteries, most of which come from China, are also big polluters, as are the Chinese-made solar panels that worry Moore.  Solar panels also shift the pollution, in their case from the power plant to China's manufacturers.
Moore also discovered that alternative energy sources cannot fill the gap if fossil fuels are banned:
Gibbs interviews a scientist who researched corporate renewables programs who said, "I haven't found a single entity anywhere in the world running on 100% solar and wind alone." The film shows a forest being cut down to build an Apple solar farm.
The documentary does a good job at proving that conservatives were right to say that green energy is a scam:
But the apocalyptic rhetoric detracts little from the heart of the documentary, which exposes the complicity of climate activists including Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Sierra Club's Executive Director, in promoting pollution-intensive biomass energies, as well as natural gas.
[snip]
After Earth Day Founder Denis Hayes claims at a 2015 Earth Day concert that the event was being powered by solar, Gibbs goes behind the stage to find out the truth. "The concert is run by a diesel generation system," the solar vendor said. "That right there could run a toaster," said another vendor.
The film also debunks the claim made by Elon Musk that his "Gigafactory" to make batteries is powered by renewables. In fact, it is hooked up to the electric grid. 
Conservatives have made this point forever, but Michael Moore, the "intellectual" progressive documentary filmmaker, just figured it out.  The man is a moron, not because he's stupid, but because he wears ideologically tinted intellectual blinders.
If you think Moore's ignorance is the worst thing about him, think again.  Moore still buys into the whole apocalyptic anthropogenic climate change shtick.  Even the dangerously wrong Wuhan virus models haven't taught him that climate change models might be wrong, too.  Climate change is a faith, and one doesn't question the dogma.
Rather than becoming a climate change apostate, Moore has come up with a new solution.  If we can't cut down on pollution, we just have to cut down on humans:
A better approach, Gibbs suggests, would be people having fewer children. "Infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide," he says.
Forced abortions, mandatory euthanasia, and Earth-friendly genocide (once called "human sacrifice to propitiate the gods") won't be far behind.  Someone should sit Moore and Gibbs down with books explaining that capitalism is the best way to clean the planet, that fossil fuel is not running out, and that Generation IV nuclear energy will be a clean, safe, infinite energy source.

Sunday, March 8, 2020

Energy independence is a good thing. Where will the crude fight lead

With the commodity world still smarting from the Nov 2014 Saudi decision to (temporarily) break apart OPEC, and flood the market with oil in (failed) hopes of crushing US shale producers (who survived thanks to generous banks extending loan terms and even more generous buyers of junk bonds), which nonetheless resulted in a painful manufacturing recession as the price of Brent cratered as low as the mid-$20's in late 2015/early 2016, on Saturday, Saudi Arabia launched its second scorched earth, or rather scorched oil campaign in 6 years. And this time there will be blood.
Following Friday's shocking collapse of OPEC+, when Russia and Riyadh were unable to reach an agreement during the OPEC+ summit in Vienna which was seeking up to 1.5 million b/d in further oil production cuts, on Saturday Saudi Arabia kick started what Bloomberg called an all-out oil war, slashing official pricing for its crude and making the deepest cuts in at least 20 years on its main grades, in an effort to push as many barrels into the market as possible.
In the first major marketing decision since the meeting, the Saudi state producer Aramco, which successfully IPOed just before the price of oil cratered...

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has


Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has

Source: 
Valley Morning Star
HARLINGEN - This is a story about death and resurrection, and as with all such stories, faith plays its part.
Texas is by far the leading wind energy producer in the United States, generating more than 20,000 megawatts of electricity each year. That is about one-fourth of the nation's wind-energy production.
We can expect the Texas winds to blow forever, but the colossal turbines which capture the breeze and transform it into electricity will not turn forever. Like all mechanical things devised by man, no matter how clever, they eventually wear out.
But the question is, what will this mean to the landscape and future of the Rio Grande Valley and, in particular, the counties of Willacy and Cameron?
And here, as we confront the end days of a wind turbine, our story begins.
Deregulating the field
When Texas deregulated its electricity market in 2002, it forced power companies, transmission providers and electricity sellers to separate. For the most part, this has worked well for the state and electricity customers, with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, known as ERCOT, ramrodding about 75 percent of the state's efficient power grid.
Deregulation also was a major factor in the rise of wind farms in Texas, with national and even global companies drawn to the state by its Wild West power-generation atmosphere with no regulatory agency, no permitting and no wind laws.
"It's like prospecting: You can basically go stake your claim and build your project," Sweetwater attorney Rod Wetsel, who co-wrote the book "Wind Law," told MIT Technology Review last fall.
And then, of course, there are the federal subsidies which make wind energy financially possible.
Wind energy production tripled thanks to the Obama administration's aggressive green energy agenda, going from 8,883 megawatts in 2005 to around 82,183 megawatts today, which is about 5.5 percent of the nation's total power generation.
The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the total cost to taxpayers of the wind production tax credit between 2016 and 2020 will be $23.7 billion.
Whether those subsidies will continue under the Trump administration remains to be seen.
One big question is how much money is being set aside for the inevitable decommissioning costs associated with removing aging, unprofitable and just plain worn out wind turbines now whirling across the horizons of Cameron and Willacy counties.
Wind turbine: The life and death
The life span of a wind turbine, power companies say, is between 20 and 25 years. But in Europe, with a much longer history of wind power generation, the life of a turbine appears to be somewhat less.
"We don't know with certainty the life spans of current turbines," said Lisa Linowes, executive director of WindAction Group, a nonprofit which studies landowner rights and the impact of the wind energy industry. Its funding, according to its website, comes from environmentalists, energy experts and public donations and not the fossil fuel industry.
Linowes said most of the wind turbines operating within the United States have been put in place within the past 10 years. In Texas, most have become operational since 2005.
"So we're coming in on 10 years of life and we're seeing blades need to be replaced, cells need to be replaced, so it's unlikely they're going to get 20 years out of these turbines," she said.
Estimates put the tear-down cost of a single modern wind turbine, which can rise from 250 to 500 feet above the ground, at $200,000.
With more than 50,000 wind turbines spinning in the United States, decommissioning costs are estimated at around $10 billion.
In Texas, there are approximately 12,000 turbines operational in the state. Decommissioning these turbines could cost as much as $2.3 billion.
Which means landowners and counties in Texas could be on the hook for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars if officials determine non-functional wind turbines need to be removed.
Or if that proves to be too costly, as seems likely, some areas of the state could become post-apocalyptic wastelands steepled with teetering and fallen wind turbines, locked in a rigor mortis of obsolescence.
Recycling or resurrecting?
Companies will of course have the option of upgrading those aging wind turbines with new models, a resurrection of sorts. Yet the financial wherewithal to do so may depend on the continuation of federal wind subsidies, which is by no means assured.
Wind farm owners say the recycling value of turbines is significant and recovering valuable material like copper and steel will cover most of the cost of decommissioning.
"The problem is, wind companies have argued vehemently that the cost of money set aside should net out the salvage value of turbines," Linowes said.
"If it costs $200,000 to take down a turbine, but once you take it down, you strip out the copper, the steel, the resellable components and sell them, then really you can make a profit," she says of the industry's pitch.
"So a company will say, 'So as to cost, subtract that benefit, so rather than $200,000 for a turbine we should only set aside $60,000,' so there's a fight over how much money should be set aside," she said.
In Texas, with virtually no regulatory oversight of wind farms, there is no requirement for wind companies to set aside any funds for decommissioning.
Yet extracting valuable materials from the turbines is not as easy as it sounds. For example, the copper in the wires used to transmit power from the turbine to the grid will have to be stripped of its plastic insulation, a task which would entail serious labor costs.
Also, the sheer size of the steel casings which provide the base of the turbines would take specialized cutting tools to reduce the steel to manageable or transportable chunks.
And the blades themselves are a high-tech wonder of composite material, which most experts agree cannot be separated into its component materials and is thus worthless for recycling.
"The blades are composite, those are not recyclable, those can't be sold," Linowes said. "The landfills are going to be filled with blades in a matter of no time."
Faith in doing the right thing
In Cameron and Willacy counties, the operational wind farms are Cameron Wind, Los Vientos I and II, Magic Valley Wind Farm and the new San Roman Wind Farm. The turbine count for these is approximately 400 operational turbines.
At a cost of $200,000 each, decommissioning these turbines when their working life expires would cost $80 million.
At Duke Energy'sLos Vientos I and II wind farms in Willacy County, there are 191 wind turbines. Across Texas at various locations, Duke has around 900 wind turbines which are operational.
"At each of our wind sites, for example, built into the construction and operational costs is also a plan for decommissioning," said Tammie McGee, director of corporate communications for Duke.
Duke Energy, which has been in the power business for more than 100 years, is relatively new to the wind industry. McGee said Duke began investing in wind power generation about a decade ago.
She said although Duke hasn't been around long enough to decommission turbines, plans are in place to "repower" aging wind site locations by upgrading - resurrecting - the equipment.
"What does happen a lot of times, and is happening now around the country, is sometimes instead of decommissioning they will 'repower' a site," she said.
"That involves replacing the turbines on top of the towers with new technology," McGee added. "In the atowers, too, and put up new and more modern towers."
If a site is properly located, the winds will still be there, making repowering an attractive financial option since the costs of site selection and development have already been covered.
Most wind farms, which pay landowners on average around $8,000 a year per turbine, have contracts with renewal clauses that stretch out to 50 or 60 years.
If Duke decides to shutter a power plant, including its wind farms, the company is committed to restoring the site to its previous state, she said.
"Regardless of fuel type, whether its gas or coal or wind or solar, once a power plant is no longer in service we restore the land to how it was before we got there," McGee said.
Calls seeking comment from two other wind energy companies operating in Cameron CountyApex Clean Energy which operates Cameron Wind and Acciona United States, which runs the San Roman Wind Farm near Laguna Vista, were not returned.
Unlike Duke Energy, some of the smaller wind farm companies operating in Texas, with fewer financial resources, may be tempted to just walk away when aging turbines no longer spin a profit.
Linowes believes such moves may begin occurring even before wind turbines outlive their useful life as manufacturing warranties on the big turbines expire.
"At what point does the cost of maintenance tip over to the point it's not worth maintaining a turbine?" she said. "We're in something of an unknown or uncertain territory."
As wind turbine manufacturing has improved, the length of warranties on these products has decreased dramatically and today the terms of most cover between five and 10 years.
It seems paradoxical that warranties would become shorter as products become better, but many wind turbine manufacturers have found a valuable revenue stream in selling extended warranties, similar to companies which sell appliances to consumers.
"It could be a very ugly situation in the next five years when we see turbines need work, and are no longer under warranty and not generating enough electricity to keep running them," Linowes said.

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Democrats are focused on making your life more uncomfortable

Cuomo’s latest bid to dodge blame for Long Island’s natural-gas crisis



Gov. Andrew Cuomo upped his histrionics on the Long Island natural gas crisis Tuesday, formally threatening to revoke the license of National Grid, the utility that has stopped taking new gas customers.
The company says it can’t take on new commitments because Cuomo (followed by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy) blocked construction of a new pipeline.
That new-hookups moratorium, the gov insists, “is either a falsified device or a lack of competence.” That is, National Grid either doesn’t need the pipeline — or is still at fault because it didn’t find some other way to assure supply.
Yet it never should have needed a Plan B: The proposed pipeline is obviously safe; it’s to run right next to an existing pipeline that’s done zero harm. The supposed environmental fears blocking it are nothing but a pretext, allowing Cuomo to pander to green extremists who oppose all carbon-based fuels.
To be clear: The pipeline is the safest, cheapest and even greenest way to get new energy supplies to the area (which includes parts of the city). But the greens don’t care — they’d rather consumers just do without.
Cuomo says gas can be “trucked, shipped, or barged” instead. But that, says Manhattan Institute energy specialist Jonathan Lesser, would require fleets of trucks supplying a huge processing facility that doesn’t exist. And the trucks (or ships) would themselves burn more carbon fuel.The gov won’t get out of this by following through on his threat — because whoever took over for National Grid would face the exact same problems.
Maybe the company should just call his bluff.

Saturday, November 9, 2019

California’s Next Electricity Headache Is a Looming Shortage...ideologically driven business decision end up here

David R. Baker
(Bloomberg) -- As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.
In the hopes of heading off a shortfall, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.
The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.
Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.
The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.
But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.
“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”
The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement -- though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.
PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.
Extending Deadlines
The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.
The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”
The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.
“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.
(Adds California grid operator’s comment beginning in the sixth paragraph)
To contact the reporter on this story: David R. Baker in San Francisco at dbaker116@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Lynn Doan at ldoan6@bloomberg.net, Joe Ryan, Reg Gale
For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.



Total System Electric Generation

2018 Total System Electric Generation in Gigawatt Hours
Fuel TypeCalifornia
In-State Generation (GWh)
Percent of California
In-State Generation
Northwest Imports (GWh)Southwest Imports (GWh)California Energy Mix (GWh)California Power Mix
Coal2940.15%3998,7409,4333.30%
Large Hydro22,09611.34%7,41898530,49910.68%
Natural Gas90,69146.54%498,90499,64434.91%
Nuclear18,2689.38%07,57325,8419.05%
Oil350.02%00350.01%
Other (Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat)4300.22%094390.15%
Renewables63,02832.35%14,07412,40089,50231.36%
Biomass5,9093.03%772266,7072.35%
Geothermal11,5285.92%1711,26912,9684.54%
Small Hydro4,2482.18%33414,5831.61%
Solar27,26513.99%1745,09432,53311.40%
Wind14,0787.23%12,6236,01032,71111.46%
Unspecified Sources of PowerN/AN/A17,57612,51930,09510.54%
Total194,842100.00%39,51751,130285,488100.00%