Sempra, BP pledge $1 billion to new gas- er, wind projects

[wtmusic]

"Dire predictions abound for U.S. wind power development if a federal production tax credit dies as scheduled at the end of this year, but projects already in the works appear to retain solid investment appeal. Sempra Energy sure seems to think so. The sprawling California energy company said it is jumping in with BP on a couple of big wind projects – one in Kansas and one in Pennsylvania – and the companies said they’ll invest more than a $1 billion in the plants.

Sempra said its Sempra U.S. Gas & Power business was taking a one-half equity stake in the 419-megawatt (MW) capacity Flat Ridge 2 plant BP is building 43 miles southwest of Wichita in south-central Kansas, and the 144-MW Mehoopany plant that’s going in 20 miles northwest of Scranton, Pa. A couple of months ago we reported that BP had struck a $750 million deal with GE for 350 wind turbines for the two plants. Now it looks like Sempra will share in that cost and the additional cost of building out the plants.

Sempra Energy consists of San Diego Gas & Electric (one of California’s three giant utilities), as well as Southern California Gas, Sempra International and the U.S. Gas & Power unit. The company’s wind deal with BP fits with a trend in the energy sector, which has also seen Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings buy into a couple of big solar-power projects.

http://theenergycollective.com/namarchetti/74757/1-billion-more-pumping-us-wind?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. I'm sorry

Did you have a point you were trying to make? Other than that a gas and electric company is diversifying their generating portfolio? (They also own “the largest photovoltaic solar facility in the U.S.”)

In New York state, we have NYSEG (New York State Electric & Gas.) NYSEG is no longer in the generating business, simply the delivery business. They deliver electricity & gas.

In 2002, NYSEG introduced a program that goes under the catchy title of “Catch the Wind.” It which allows NYSEG customers to specifically purchase wind energy, generated in New York State.

Does the fact that the G in NYSEG stands for “Gas” mean something nefarious? (They also deliver electricity generated by nuclear power. What does that mean?)

[Nederland]

2. Gas Companies Love Wind Projects

They help them sell more gas.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. So do I!

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37715/

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]GE Combines Natural Gas, Wind, and Solar[/font]
[font size=4]The hybrid plant could be the cheapest and easiest way to add renewable energy to the grid.[/font]

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 | By Kevin Bullis

[font size=3]GE has announced the first power plant to integrate wind and solar power with natural gas—a 530-megawatt plant that will start operating in Turkey in 2015. The power plant is made practical by a flexible, high-efficiency natural-gas system the company announced two weeks ago and a solar thermal power system created by eSolar, a Burbank, California-based startup that GE recently invested in.

Such hybrid plants may become the dominant type of new power plant in some parts of the world, GE says. The new technology is aimed at countries that use 50 hertz electricity (the United States uses 60 hertz). In particular, it could make it easier for China and the European Union to meet their renewable energy targets.

Adding solar power to natural gas plants isn't a new idea, but it hasn't been economical without government subsidies. GE says that because of its new turbines and related equipment, these hybrid plants can, for utilities with the right combination of sunlight and natural gas prices, be competitive even without government support.

While combining solar thermal power and natural-gas turbines is not new, adding wind power to such a system is, GE says. Pairing wind with the natural gas plant helps shave some of the cost of the wind power—the wind farm can share some of the natural gas plant's control systems and its connection to the grid. The natural gas plant also smooths out variations from the wind turbines.

…[/font][/font]

[madokie]

5. Thats a crock

When they build a new wind farm they don't take out some of the capacity somewhere else. In fact when the wind blows they don't have to burn as much gas because if they didn't have the wind to begin with they'd be using gas/coal for all of their output. Adding Wind or solar to the mix actually stops some of the coal and gas from being burned. Actually.

Its pathetic how some who supports nuclear energy talk this none sense about how gas loves wind and solar and they think we're so out of it that we won't notice the smell of the bullshit their spewing I guess.

[Nederland]

6. Wrong

In fact when the wind blows they don't have to burn as much gas because if they didn't have the wind to begin with they'd be using gas/coal for all of their output.

Wrong. Until better storage mechanisms are widely available, inefficient gas fired peaker plants run all the time because the wind might die out at any time.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/energy-storage-vs.-peakers/

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/biz_briefs/AJ2011101414525

[madokie]

7. Your first link is trying to sell something

and I won't even bother with the other.
I stand by what I said. You don't like it prove me wrong but that first link didn't prove anything except that you will try anything to come out on top of a discussion.

[FBaggins]

10. No need to "prove you wrong" since you're saying essentially the same thing.

Wind power saves on fuel expenses, but doesn't replace the fossil-generation plant. So you save little to nothing on capital costs... just fuel costs (and, of course, the emissions that would result from burning that fuel).

Because of gas' superior responsiveness (compared to coal/nuclear), the expansion of wind power in an area helps ensure the future of the gas generation plant.

[madokie]

24. Gas in that case is acceptable

Gas is a lot cleaner to burn than coal is and since it takes a lot less building in building a gas plant over nuclear I would say that in this case gas is better than nuclear is. Lots of co2 in building a nuke plant in comparison. Hell the manufacturing of the cement that they use so much of is the dirtiest there is.

Any electric we get from wind or solar is less co2 in the atmosphere and thats pretty simple

[wtmusic]

4. It would be diversifying if there was a chance of them being profitable.

Gas companies are locking in profits by building out a technology which relies on them - whether that tech is needed or not. Kinda like selling cheap printers to guarantee sales of expensive ink.

And the beauty of it is - the stupid treehuggers think they're getting clean energy! (the G in NYSEG stands for Genius, as in the marketing kind).

Btw, do you know what percentage of utility customers sign up for already-heavily-subsidiized wind power?

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Are you saying that wind energy is subsidized like nuclear fission?

http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/democrats-weigh-true-costs-and-risks-nuclear-energy-post-fukushima

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Democrats Weigh the True Costs and Risks of Nuclear Energy Post-Fukushima[/font]

May 13, 2011

[font size=3]Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittees on Investigations & Oversight and Energy & Environment held a joint hearing on Nuclear Energy Risk Management.

There are 104 operating nuclear power plants in the United States that provide roughly 20-
percent of the nation’s electricity. No new nuclear power plants have been built in the U.S. for the past thirty years, since the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Over the last few years, there has been a renewed interest in building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the U.S., and a renewed push for more subsidies to underwrite this construction. Public support for this policy has eroded as a consequence of the March 11th earthquake and tsunami in Japan that resulted in the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The partial meltdown and spent nuclear fuel fires reminded the world of the potential catastrophic consequences of nuclear power.

Members and witnesses at today’s hearing pointed out that the nuclear power industry has received billions of dollars in federal subsidies from the U.S. government for nearly 60 years, yet the industry is still unable to stand on its own two feet. “Despite decades of support, nuclear power plants are still unable to operate competitively in the U.S. energy market,” said Representative Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. “Now, we are being asked for still more subsidies to build another generation of plants. The public gravy train has got to come to a stop for this now mature industry,” she said.

…

Representative Brad Miller (D-NC), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment added his views. “I am a cautious, reluctant supporter of nuclear technology. But we must acknowledge the real costs and give other technologies a fair shake at competing,” said Miller. “This industry would not have been born were it not for government investment, and 60 years later, it would not survive without the government propping it up.”

…[/font][/font]

[XemaSab]

9. Let's see:

Wind projects prompt fight in Congress over subsidies

When they bought a dairy farm near Red Wing 20 years ago, Ann and David Buck never thought the quiet life in rural Goodhue County could lead to a clash of wills with a faraway oil tycoon like T. Boone Pickens.

(snip)

The Texas billionaire-turned-alternative-energy crusader sees wind in those hills. But the Bucks and many of their neighbors want no part of the Pickens-backed AWA Goodhue Wind project, which would put about 50 giant wind turbines near the scenic Mississippi River bluffs, an hour's drive from the Twin Cities.

A looming court battle to block the $180 million project in southern Minnesota also is helping fuel a fight in Congress to pull the plug on the entire federal wind subsidy program created by President Obama's 2009 stimulus package.

In less than three years, the program has helped re-energize the boom-and-bust wind industry with $7.6 billion in grants. That includes nearly $200 million in Minnesota, which now ranks fourth in installed wind power capacity.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/135835343.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. So, you’re saying that wind is subsidized, like nuclear fission too!

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-102

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Information on Research Funding, Tax Expenditures, and Other Activities That Support Electricity Production[/font]
GAO-08-102, Oct 26, 2007

[font size=3]…

We estimate that DOE's appropriations for electricity-related R&D, adjusted for inflation, totaled $11.5 billion from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. These appropriations grew by 35 percent during the 6-year period we examined, increasing from $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2007. Nuclear programs received the largest share of electricity-related R&D funding, with appropriations totaling $6.2 billion from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. Appropriations for nuclear programs grew by 59 percent, increasing from $775 million in fiscal year 2002 to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007. The greatest variation in funding within these programs occurred in the environmental cleanup program, which funds the cleanup of sites contaminated by nuclear research. Other nuclear energy programs include research on fusion energy and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which seeks to reduce nuclear fuel waste requiring geologic disposal. programs. Fossil fuel programs were appropriated $3.1 billion in electricity-related R&D funding from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. Appropriations for these programs were relatively constant during the 6-year period we examined. Most of the funding variation within these programs was due to the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which is aimed at accelerating the deployment of advanced technologies to reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants. Other significant fossil fuel energy programs include the fuels and power systems program, which provides research funding aimed at reducing coal-burning power plant carbon emissions, and the FutureGen program, which focuses on the technical capability of coproducing electricity and hydrogen with near-zero emissions. Renewable programs were appropriated $1.4 billion in electricity-related R&D funding from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. During this period, appropriations for these programs grew by 23 percent, increasing from $248 million in fiscal year 2002 to $305 million in fiscal year 2007. …[/font][/font]

http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/pubs/bill_hopwood/Energy%20Subsidies%20Factsheet_1.2007.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Wind Energy and U.S. Energy Subsidies[/font]

[font size=4]Support for wind enhances national energy independence, promotes rural economic development, contributes to energy price stability and helps address global climate change.[/font]

[font size=3]

• Every energy technology is supported by the federal government. Wind energy is no exception, nor should it be.


• During the year 2003 alone, federal energy subsidies ranged from $37 billion to $64 billion, according to a study prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy. Wind energy accounted for less than 1% of the total.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

12. Someone needs to look up the definition of subsidy

Let me know if you need help.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Hey! Thanks for the personal shot!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

[wtmusic]

15. Research not included

"Most subsidies are made by the government to producers or distributed as subventions in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Like, for example, when an industry wouldn't be profitable without outside help. Anything come to mind?

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Hey! Thanks again! I love it when you attack, rather than discuss.

I gave you the “dictionary definition.”

As for industries which would not be profitable without subsidies… does anything come to mind… why, yes! The nuclear power industry, which has relied on subsidies for the entire time it has existed and relies on them to this day.


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Nuclear Power Subsidies: The Gift that Keeps on Taking[/font]
[font size=4]Download: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011) | Nuclear Power Subsidies: Executive Summary (2011)[/font]

[font size=3]Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed.

…

Subsidies prove addictive

Subsidies were originally intended to provide temporary support for the fledgling nuclear power industry, but the promised day when the industry could prosper without them and power from nuclear reactors would be “too cheap to meter” has yet to arrive. It is unlikely to arrive any time soon, as cost estimates for new reactors continue to escalate and the nuclear power lobby demands even more support from taxpayers. Piling new subsidies on top of existing ones will provide the industry with little incentive to rework its business model to internalize its considerable costs and risks.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

17. I'm sorry if you regard me pointing out an error in your post as an attack.

Can you give me an example of a nuclear subsidy which doesn't involve loan guarantees or insurance? Because both of those are largely attributable to irrational public fears and antinukes doing their very best to stop the boogeyman.

Once a nuclear plant is operational, they're very profitable. Unlike...

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Which “error” were you pointing out?

BTW: I love the new-fangled style of apology (in essence) “I’m sorry if you took offense.” rather than the older, straightforward style, “I’m sorry I offended you.”

The new style is really lovely, you see, it’s all my fault, if I take offense.



Regarding subsidies, other than loan guarantees and insurance, why don’t those count?

However, here’s an announcement from last week:
http://nuclear.energy.gov/newsroom/2012PRs/nePR012012.html

[font face=Times, Serif]January 20, 2012

[font size=5]Energy Department Takes First Step to Spur U.S. Manufacturing of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors[/font]

[font size=4]New Funding Opportunity Announcement Will Support SMR Design and Licensing for Widespread Commercial Use[/font]

[font size=3]Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced the first step toward manufacturing small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in the United States, demonstrating the Administration’s commitment to advancing U.S. manufacturing leadership in low-carbon, next generation energy technologies and restarting the nation’s nuclear industry. Through the draft Funding Opportunity Announcement announced today, the Department will establish cost-shared agreements with private industry to support the design and licensing of SMRs.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

20. Your inclusion of "research" as a subsidy

You went back and tried to cover your tracks by augmenting your post, but thanks to DU3 it's...a bit more difficult.

Btw, I wasn't apologizing. I wouldn't think of asking you to apologize for a pointing out errors in my posts, and you have on many occasions.

"A subsidy is money given by a government to help support a business or person the market does not support..." according to Wikipedia. That doesn' t mean that research isn't occasionally thrown in the mix, but I've never seen research designated by the government under the term "subsidy". It's usually applied to mature technologies or businesses that society has deemed are worth the cost of extra ongoing support.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. I wasn’t trying to “cover my tracks”

Are you trying to say that the government providing funding “to support the design and licensing of SMRs” is not a subsidy?

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Paying the nuclear industry to produce power

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif]…

[font size=4]C. Reducing the Price of Power Produced (Output-Linked Support)[/font]

[font size=3]Until recently, subsidies linked to plant output were not a factor for nuclear power. That changed with the passage of EPACT in 2005, which granted new reactors an important subsidy in the form of:

• Production tax credits (PTCs). A PTC will be granted for each kilowatt-hour generated during a new reactor’s first eight years of operation; at present, this credit is available only to the first plants to be built, up to a combined total capacity of six gigawatts. While EPACT provides a nominal PTC of 1.8 ¢/kWh, payments are time-limited. Over the full life of the plant, the PTC is worth between 1.05 and 1.45 ¢/kWh. Under current law, PTCs are not available to POUs (since POUs do not pay taxes), but there have been legislative efforts to enable POUs to capture the value of the tax credits by selling or transferring them to other project investors that do pay taxes.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

21. Do you have anything not from the Union of Wannabe Scientists? nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. More ad hominem

“Union of Wannabe Scientists”

Seriously, address the point. Name calling is simply childish.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb06-18.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif]…

[font size=4]Credit for Production From Advanced Nuclear Facilities

Notice 2006–40[/font]

[font size=3]SECTION 1. PURPOSE

This notice sets forth interim guidance, pending the issuance of regulations, relating to the credit under § 45J of the Internal Revenue Code for production of electricity at advanced nuclear power facilities. Specifically, this notice specifies the method that will be used to allocate the national megawatt capacity limitation that limits the allowable credit and prescribes the application process by which taxpayers may request an allocation of the national megawatt capacity limitation. This notice also provides guidance on the requirement that the electricity be sold to an unrelated person and on the effect of grants, tax-exempt bonds, subsidized energy financing, and other credits. The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department expect that the regulations will incorporate the rules set forth in this notice.

…[/font][/font]

(I’ll let you look up the rest.)

[wtmusic]

25. It's a lousy, unreviewed, non-academic source

which has a president who is not a scientist. Instead of again pointing this out to you, which is boring me to tears, I thought I'd abbreviate.

But if you insist...

Re: your source, has a dime been credited to anyone yet?

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Still more ad hominem

I’ll bet you like the Union of Concerned Scientists just fine when you agree with them.


As for the Production Tax Credit, I don’t think the “Nuclear Industry” has produced any new reactors to take advantage of it. Apparently, even if the government offers to pay them to produce power, that’s not enough of an incentive. “Give us more subsidies!”


https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]New Nuclear – The Economics Say No[/font]

[font size=4]UK Green Lights New Nuclear – Or Does It?[/font]

[font size=3]

• Green lighting new nuclear? — The UK government today announced a fast-track planning process for new nuclear power stations. 10 sites have been approved for possible development. The government is presenting today’s announcement as providing the green light for a major new nuclear programme, which it says is needed to meet climate change and security of supply targets.


• But no financial support has been offered — The government has not announced any direct financial support for new nuclear. The government still seems to expect the private sector to take an unacceptable level of risk, in our view.


…


• The three Corporate Killers — Three of the risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies.


…


• Nor will they be built in the UK — We see little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built in the UK by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and / or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

26. Nope - support for new designs.

Is there an existing nuclear facility which isn't profitable?

Didn't think so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. So, you’re saying…

…that once the plants are built, they’re profitable. However, they’re not such moneymakers that any new ones have been built.


http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables/

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Subsidies for Oil, Gas and Nuclear vs. Renewables[/font]

[font size=4]Every energy source in the last 400 years of U.S. history has been subsidized. Should we encourage or kill subsidies for energy? [/font]

…

[font size=3]Pfund said, “All new energy industries -- timber, coal, oil and gas, nuclear -- have received substantial government support at a pivotal time in their early growth, creating millions of jobs and significant economic growth," adding, “Subsidies for these ‘traditional’ energy sources were many, many times what we are spending today on renewables."

Here's a table showing the historical average of annual energy subsidies for O&G, nuclear, biofuels, and renewables.



According to the report, as a percentage of inflation-adjusted federal spending, nuclear subsidies accounted for more than one percent of the federal budget over the first 15 years of each subsidies’ life; oil and gas subsidies made up half a percent of the total budget, but renewables have amounted to only about a tenth of a percent.

…[/font][/font]

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Investigative report: N.E.’s nuclear money pit

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news?ContentRecord_id=f5bbf00d-3ce2-4b8e-b2a1-4534849b2541

[font face=Times, Serif]Apr 12 2011
[font size=5]Investigative report: N.E.’s nuclear money pit[/font]
The Bennington Banner (Vermont) - by Maggie Mulvihill, Shay Totten and Matt Porter

[font size=3]New England’s electricity consumers and nuclear power plant owners have poured close to $1 billion into a federal waste fund for the past three decades, honoring their end of a 1982 bargain with the government to finance the permanent storage of thousands of tons of spent fuel from the region’s reactors.

…

A 2006 audit by the NRC’s own internal financial watchdog found in a review of 13 nuclear plants, the actual on-site estimate to decommission was 16 percent higher than was what set aside in funds. "What they have found at these sites again and again is there has been an underestimation by hundreds of millions of dollars of what it will cost," Katz said. "That is why the investment community won’t get behind new reactors. They have no faith in what it is going to cost."

The estimated cost to decommission Yankee Rowe power station along the Deerfield River in Rowe, New England’s first nuclear plant, was $306 million in 1995 dollars. The actual costs were $600 million, a company report states. Yankee Rowe’s decommissioning was completed in 2007, though its spent fuel remains at the site in what’s called "dry cask" storage and around-the-clock strict security. Similar decommissioning cost problems occurred in Maine and Connecticut. Connecticut ratepayers will contribute to Yankee Connecticut’s decommissioning costs until 2015 because the NRC and Yankee underestimated the cleanup costs by about $300 million, plant critics said.

"It wound up costing a billion to decontaminate Connecticut Yankee" -- twice as much as estimated by Yankee, Gundersen said. "All of the ratepayers in Connecticut got nailed for 10 years to pay that off."

…[/font][/font]

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Nuclear Subsidies

http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/presentations/noibi.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Meeting October 18, 2011[/font]

[font size=4]Statement of Yomi Noibi, Ph.D., Executive Director of Environmental Community Action (ECO-Action)[/font]

[font size=3]…

In addition to energy efficiency measures, GA utilities should be transitioning to safe, clean and affordable renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar power, and hydrogen fuel cells. This year the MIT Press published the book, Solar Revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry, by Travis Bradford. Bradford shows that wind power today produces electricity at half the cost of nuclear power. Currently, centralized solar thermal plants produce electricity at a cost competitive with nuclear power.

Bradford projects that in the next decade, photovoltaic cells and hydrogen fuel cells will be competitive sources of electricity generation. His projections are based solely on letting market forces do their thing to promote these renewable energy sources. Of course, nuclear power has never had to rely solely on market forces for its promotion. Nuclear power has received the most subsidies of any energy technology. Even so, with all these taxpayer subsidies, nuclear power is more costly than wind power. Of course, if instead of being heavily subsidized by taxpayer money, nuclear power had to rely solely on market forces, we would not be here tonight having this meeting! Moreover, if only a tiny portion of the subsidies larded on nuclear power had been provided for solar and wind power technologies, we would not be meeting here tonight!

…[/font][/font]

[Kolesar]

30. "stupid treehuggers"

Nice message for the Democrats visiting the Environment & Energy group

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. Technical terminology

“Stupid treehuggers” is not meant to be insulting to anyone. It simply is the phrase used for anyone who is not 100% in support of generating 100% of our electricity using nuclear fission.

[txlibdem]

31. The unfortunate truth: wind farms with no energy storage are nothing but a subsidy to natural gas

Even using CAES (compressed air energy storage) natural gas is required to heat the air so it can efficiently spin the turbines that generate electricity from the stored air.

Only hydro storage and gravity power storage (which is also a form of hydro but does not require lakes to pump from and/or to for generating/storing energy) are free of the need for a natural gas backup generator.

When you say wind farm today you are also saying natural gas generating plant. They are welded at the hip when no hydro storage is available or included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/a-new-energy-storage-option-gravity-power/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_hybrid_power_systems

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. FUD

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/51240.pdf

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Building a New Energy Future with Wind Power[/font]

[font size=3]Wind is a clean, domestic, renewable energy resource that can help America realize a secure energy future. Capturing the wind generates clean electricity and substantial economic benefits to communities all across the United States. A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report found that the wind energy could supply 20% of the nation’s electricity by 2030, which would entail 300,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind generating capacity. The wind industry’s rapid expansion in the past few years underscores the industry’s significant potential to create jobs, spur economic activity, reduce water use, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while producing clean electricity.

…

[font size=4]Industry Growth[/font]

Although industry growth in 2010 was slower than the record growth set in 2009, 5,600 MW worth of projects were under construction at the end of the year, laying the foundation for further growth in 2011. In 2010, the U.S. wind industry grew 15%, installing 5,115 MW of generating capacity—enough to power more than 1.2 million homes. Wind power represented 25% of all new U.S. electric generation capacity in 2010. According to the American Wind Energy Association, 38 states now have utility scale wind projects. Current wind power installations in the United States provide enough electricity to avert nearly 62 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which is equivalent to taking 14 million cars off the road. Fourteen states have installed more than 1,000 MW of wind power.

…[/font][/font]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/wind_ad.html

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy[/font]

[font size=3]Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are aimed at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.[/font]

[font size=4]Advantages[/font]

[font size=3]Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse gasses.

…

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the particular project.

Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.

…[/font][/font]

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/wind/newsletter/detail.cfm/articleId=8

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]WWSIS Phase 2 Kick-off[/font]

[font size=3]On March 16, 2011, DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory hosted a kick-off meeting for Phase 2 of the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study (WWSIS). The first phase of WWSIS identified the operating impacts of penetration levels at up to 35% of wind and solar energy on the power system operated by the WestConnect group of utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The study found that it is feasible for WestConnect to accommodate 30% wind and 5% solar if significant changes to operating practices were made, including balancing area cooperation and intra-hour scheduling.

Western Electric Coordinating Council regulators, utilities and state policymakers would now like to gain a better understanding of the wear and tear and increased maintenance/repair costs due to increased ramping and cycling of conventional coal and gas generators. They would like to know when it makes sense to upgrade a conventional generator to better accommodate wind and solar and the potential mitigation options to reduce overall costs by reducing the cycling and ramping of conventional generators.

In Phase 2 of WWSIS, researchers will use a new modeling tool, PLEXOS, to examine the impact of variable generation on conventional units. Traditional production cost modeling uses hourly time steps; however, many of the effects of renewable generation are apparent at the sub-hourly level. PLEXOS models a 5-minute dispatch and can easily optimize multiple constraints, including additional costs due to ramping and cycling of conventional generators. It is used by industry analysts and power companies to resolve regional reserve allocations, resource expansions, emission values, and market prices for energy and reserves. It offers more detailed modeling of conventional generator emissions that result from ramping events and allows analysts to examine the benefits of faster markets, balancing area cooperation, and shorter time horizon forecasting techniques.

…[/font][/font]

[txlibdem]

34. Your post proves my point. Are you sure you know the definition of "FUD?"

You: "Wind power represented 25% of all new U.S. electric generation capacity in 2010"
Me: Simple math tells us then that roughly 75% of new electric generation was fossil based, most of it probably natural gas since coal is a 4-letter word now (finally). Solar still makes up only a small percentage of our electric generation (in time that will change but not yet) so that does not change the math.

What is the point of being pro-wind power? Is it to guarantee that 75% of new electric plants will run on fossils??? I don't think so. FAIL.

You: "The study found that it is feasible for WestConnect to accommodate 30% wind and 5% solar"
Me: Oh, is that what we want; 65% fossil fuels in our electricity generation mix? That could conceivably leave coal still producing 50% of our electricity. That is NO CHANGE from the status quo.

Without energy storage the study found that wind could only grow to 30% of the mix. Is *that* going to stop Global Climate Change??? Not in my opinion. FAIL.

Thank you for taking the time to quote sources which prove my points for me. It makes life so much easier for me.

To the point: we need an energy policy that takes us to 100% renewable energy. Not 25%, not 35%. Anything less than 100% dooms the planet to irreversible Global Climate Change, with all its dire consequences.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. I'm confident that in person you’re quite reasonable

You seem to have twisted the meanings of each of the items in my posting.

I have never (to my recollection) suggested that we should get 100% of our electricity from wind. A mix of renewable electric sources will be much more helpful.

Your claim that “wind farms with no energy storage are nothing but a subsidy to natural gas” is simply not true.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf

[txlibdem]

36. As I am of you

From your link: "no new backup is required." True. No *NEW* backup is required because the natural gas peaking plants are *ALREADY IN SERVICE* today. Peaking plants are the most expensive power a utility has to buy because they have to ramp up extremely quickly, which means they are not yet thermally stable, which means that they are far less efficient than a traditional natural gas plant that supplies base power, which means that the power they generate is going to be more expensive. Add to that the fact that they are only "on" for a percentage of their lifetime yet the owners of the plant had to pay exactly as much as a full-time natural gas generating plant for permitting, environmental assessments, construction, etc. That is why your link does not lie when it says no NEW backup is required.

Our national goal should be a 100% renewable energy grid, zero fossil use. That cannot be achieved without combining solar with wind and all the other zero carbon energy sources. Likewise, it cannot be achieved without adequate energy storage.

Wind farms without energy storage are, indeed, a guarantee that natural gas peaking plants will continue to be needed far into the future.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. We will not have a 100% renewable grid for decades

When we do, it will not be 100% wind. I’m confident that it will include various forms of energy storage (some for very short term, some for longer term.) For example, concentrating solar power (with storage) is likely to be a part of the mix.

If geothermal energy is a part of the mix, it can essentially be deployed as needed (just think of the Earth as one big battery!)

In the meantime, we will have a grid which is partially renewable and partially nonrenewable.

GE’s hybrid plant is an interesting interim solution: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=4432