Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 278 posts

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#91

Post by djrogers »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #4
saryant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. As more export capacity comes online in the US I would expect natural gas projects in the US to continue apace even if domestic consumption stays flat or declines.

There are multiple transmission line projects in progress in the US to drag wind energy to major load centers. Solar can be produced anywhere of course. Natgas exports may increase, but it appears everyone is getting off of fossil asap. You cannot compete against an energy source with no fuel cost.

> Solar can be produced anywhere of course.

That’s not a very realistic view of the globe. There are plenty of populous places with only 8-9 hours of total sunlight during winter months, assuming a clear day. Growing up in Vancouver, it wasn’t uncommon to go a week without seeing sunlight...

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#92

Post by crdoconnor »

gozur88 wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple transmission line projects in progress in the US to drag wind energy to major load centers. Solar can be produced anywhere of course. Natgas exports may increase, but it appears everyone is getting off of fossil asap. You cannot compete against an energy source with no fuel cost.

>There are multiple transmission line projects in progress in the US to drag wind energy to major load centers. Sure, but not to Europe and Asia. http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-asia-lng-idUSL1N1FE4BG

That sounds like a way to lose a lot of money. Fracking in the US is heavily leveraged and often running at a loss:

http://wolfstreet.com/2015/07/21/its-happening-debt-is-teari...

...and that's before you take into account the massive cost of shipping it across an ocean.

By contrast Russian gas is already very profitable and shipped through a pre-existing network of pipelines to Italy.

Even if the numbers work now it clearly doesn't take into account the fact that Russia can undercut them forever.

It reeks a little of desperation.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#93

Post by sremani »

jacquesm wrote: post #88
saryant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. As more export capacity comes online in the US I would expect natural gas projects in the US to continue apace even if domestic consumption stays flat or declines.

> Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. Yes, but not easier than it is to transport electrons. And solar and wind energy can be converted into electrons and then transported across vast distances using existing infrastructure.

The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production.

A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons.. Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap!

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#94

Post by davidf18 »

jostmey wrote: post #56
davidf18 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case, you are simply throwing your money away since the green producers aren't going to produce more energy because you and other consumers are paying them to. They will produce the same amount regardless. In that case, better to give the money to some charity that say, replaces incandescent bulbs with the newest LED lamps starting with your own house and office if you haven't already converted. Also, bet…

Are you trying to tell me that they won't build more windmills if that's what people are paying for?

> "Are you trying to tell me that they won't build more windmills..."

The tilting at windmills joke comes to mind :-)

Honestly, first off the article says that it seems that gas is less competitive than renewable, so there are already market incentives in Texas to build windmills.

A lot of the money for windmill power simply ends up in General Electric's (the major US vendor for windmills) pockets.

Also, I think ones energy is best put in doing what one can do to minimize energy consumption using LED lights in place of incandescents, using mass transit instead of one's automobile and working with city council in Dallas and other major Texas cities to encourage more production of mass transit.

Also, doing what one can to turn up air conditioning from 72 to 76 or 78 in Dallas will save substantial amount of carbon-based power generation.

There is also the use of microturbine technology that can be used for trigeneration meaning that water chillers for air-conditioning as well as electric power from natural gas. This is very efficient and if it received the same financial incentives and wind and solar probably much more cost effective.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#95

Post by jacquesm »

maxerickson wrote: post #78
codecamper wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put some solar panels on your roof, run wire to home. There, you have transported your power. Bigger issue is winter time energy, aka heating. That one will be hard with current tech (storing energy for once per year use), though solar is getting cheap enough you may be able to use use solar generated electricity to heat -- you would need overcapacity of panels in northern climates -- but that's probably cheaper than…

Investing in highly insulated buildings is the way to heat with solar. Modestly more expensive up front, cheaper over the lifetime of the building.

Spot on. In Canada I visited a building that was being constructed as an experimental home using very thick walls (12", R35 or thereabouts) using several vertical chambers and reflective mylar for insulation and a solar trap. Mid winter, -20 outside, the house had not been heated at all and a bucket of water was left in one of the rooms, it had not frozen. Body heat would be enough to get it to 10 Celsius or so, solar would easily do the rest.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#96

Post by olegkikin »

_delirium wrote: post #54
saryant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. As more export capacity comes online in the US I would expect natural gas projects in the US to continue apace even if domestic consumption stays flat or declines.

Gas is easy to transport, but only really by pipeline. LNG is a lot more expensive and capital-intensive. And there is only one place with rising demand where it's easy to transport U.S. natural gas: Mexico. Pipeline gas exports to Mexico did nearly triple between 2011 and 2016 [1]. Exports to Canada over the same period fell, however. Anywhere besides Canada and Mexico requires liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals,…

Also Europe is trying to reduce its dependence on the russian natural gas, so they are building LNG terminals all over.

LNG tankers are freaking scary though, they are like mini-nukes, approaching 1 megaton equivalent.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#97

Post by thechao »

sremani wrote: post #93
jacquesm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. Yes, but not easier than it is to transport electrons. And solar and wind energy can be converted into electrons and then transported across vast distances using existing infrastructure.

The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons.. Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap!

Texas is investing billions into new voltage lines---many of which are designed to pull power from west & coastal Texas power to central & near-East Texas. (This leaves East Texas power generation to East Texas.)

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#98

Post by maxerickson »

hueving wrote: post #66
jostmey wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to tell me that they won't build more windmills if that's what people are paying for?

Are you suggesting the transmission company would refuse the electricity from the wind mills if enough people aren't paying for the clean option? I'm curious how this works. What happens if you pay for clean and the wind isn't blowing at night? What happens if everyone paying for clean turns on their appliances and the demand outstrips the clean supply? I highly doubt there are blackouts in these occasions so it seem…

Or "screwed".

It's pretty likely that the literature describing the plan mentions what happens when they can't buy renewable power.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#99

Post by jacquesm »

sremani wrote: post #93
jacquesm wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Natural gas energy can be transported much more easily than solar or wind. Yes, but not easier than it is to transport electrons. And solar and wind energy can be converted into electrons and then transported across vast distances using existing infrastructure.

The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons.. Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap!

> The bottleneck is the grid.

Sure the grid is a bottle neck, but it is a bottle neck that can be fixed. Aging infrastructure is the problem, not the grid per-se, it just happens to have older and less well maintained segments.

> The Grid has to match the production and demand

No, the grid transports power from places where it is generated to places where it is consumed. Whether the consumer is local or remote is not that important other than that you'll incur some more losses.

Demand matching is the job of powerplants that can change their output power quickly.

> and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity.

That's because there simply is an excess of power in CA and shedding it to AZ is cheaper than shunting it locally.

> A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons..

Of course it isn't. That LNG tanker needs a port and it needs a plant to convert the LNG to electricity. LNG is hamburger, electricity is steak.

> Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap!

There also exist load leveling measures using superconducting loops, these are used for windfarms whose output can change very rapidly especially when they're on the end of anemic grid infrastructure (remote location), these can be used for solar as well.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#100

Post by ghouse »

Koromix wrote: post #53
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely off the mark. Enough energy from the sun hits the Earth in an hour or two to power humanity for a year. It's simply a matter of scaling up. Nuclear is already dead at current wind and solar generation costs.

Photovoltaic capacity is expected to be around 4674 GW in 2050 (currently around 150, I think) [1]. Let's be optimistic and say it'll actually be around 20000 GW, just for the fun of it, and let's ignore all of the variability problems that solar poses. Considering that PV's capacity factor is around 15%, that's around 26 PWh of annual (electric) energy production, around 50% of the electrical energy we use up in a y…

"Considering that PV's capacity factor is around 15%"

In the SW United States, capacity factor for a ground-mounted system utilizing a single-axis tracker is between 28% and 35%.

Source: I am a developer of utility-scale PV power plants.

Post reply on HN