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

111–120 of 278 posts

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

#111

Post by jacquesm »

crdoconnor wrote: post #106
sremani wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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. Europe is handling it well: http://www.powermag.com/europe-rebuilds-grid-to-accommodate-... America will probably lag significantly in this regard because too much of the grid is owned by compa…

In Europe one big reason for this is that Germany is now a very large producer of electricity from wind energy and several of Germany's neighbors have old and unstable grid infra. This causes all kinds of problem, especially in the former East German part of Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Those regions still have a large chunk of their power infrastructure dating back to the communist times, power consumption in those regions is up considerably compared to the time when those grids were sized and that combined with the fluctuating supply caused by wind farms has caused some issues that can't be mitigated easily.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/how-germa...

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

#112

Post by Koromix »

icebraining wrote: post #75
Koromix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't get it, what's your argument? Yes, at the pace we're building them, PV is not sufficient. Guess what, the exact same fact is true of nuclear. All that establishes is that we must invest more, it doesn't say in what we should invest.

It was an answer to parent's "It's simply a matter of scaling up." comment.

I agree with you that the exact same fact is true of nuclear. And wind too, while we're at it.

I don't think there's a way out of it: our technological civilization lives WAY WAY beyond its means, and that is made possible only by burning through fossil fuels, among many other non-renewable resources. When that dries up (economically speaking) or enough ecosystems have been damaged, our civilization will most likely fall apart. It'll be a slow and ugly process, it'll happen over decades, and it's already under way.

Renewables would have been great in a simpler and slower world. Hopefully, that's how the next global (if any) civilization goes in a few hundred or thousand years.

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

#113

Post by davidf18 »

maxerickson wrote: post #55
davidf18 wrote: post #10

I wonder what the economics would be without the federal tax incentives for wind and solar. Does anyone know? EDIT: Someone above provided a link that provides the figure I was looking for: "Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all ye…

My utility sent some LED bulbs in the mail. I expect it was attached to some government incentive (they probably get green credits for the difference in consumption). Lighting isn't that big though, ~10% of US electrical consumption, when you include commercial and street lighting. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=99&t=3 (It's a big chunk, just not a huge one. If you figure on a fair amount of it already bei…

Thanks for the link.

Still, incandescents consume a lot of power, and LEDs little.

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

#114

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

masklinn wrote: post #84
fencepost wrote: post #29

Very amusing that the article ends with “It’s pretty slim pickings right now,” Ferguson said. “God is not manufacturing more coastal property.” Part of the concern for renewable energy folks is that you could argue that God is arranging for more coastal property, though not perhaps in ways useful to wind farmers on the Texas coast.

> Part of the concern for renewable energy folks is that you could argue that God is arranging for more coastal property Not really though, the overall coastline length will shrink so assuming constant coastal property size, the number will go down not up.

Climate change will make climates in parts of the globe more extreme though, no? Is that beneficial to wind power?

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

#115

Post by toomuchtodo »

ghouse wrote: post #100
Koromix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking for an apprentice? I'd love to shift from tech ops/security architecture into developing renewables at scale.

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

#116

Post by PeterisP »

saryant wrote: post #3
toomuchtodo wrote: post #2

It appears we're at the inflection point where even natural gas (in addition to coal) is getting pushed out of the generation mix. Good! About time. This may require paying natural gas generators for their ability to quickly throttle to back renewables, but only as a temporary measure until utility scale batteries fall in cost.

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." makes me think - is it really cheaper to build and maintain a natural gas pipeline than a large high-voltage line capable of transmitting as much power?

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

#117

Post by rpedela »

sremani wrote: post #86
blurbleblurble wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A large part of the U.S. military budget is implicated in fossil fuel security.

That has not been true for a while, I would actually contend, that US spends more for subsidizing defense of Europe than any Middle Eastern security. US Shale with Canada and Mexico already made North America energy independent.

Source?

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

#118

Post by sorenjan »

olegkikin wrote: post #96
_delirium wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Russia is building a new pipeline (Nord Stream 2) to Germany. It's under construction.

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

#119

Post by saryant »

jacquesm wrote: post #99
sremani wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Electricity may be more flexible for domestic consumption but it's damn hard to ship electrons to Japan or Europe from the US.

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

#120

Post by masklinn »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #114
masklinn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of the concern for renewable energy folks is that you could argue that God is arranging for more coastal property Not really though, the overall coastline length will shrink so assuming constant coastal property size, the number will go down not up.

Climate change will make climates in parts of the globe more extreme though, no? Is that beneficial to wind power?

No. More extreme = less consistent, and likely too violent, these are not things you want for wind power.

You want consistent wind within the efficiency band of your turbines. Wind spikes are not a good thing, best case your turbines go into protection (they brake and the blades are feathered), worst case they're on fire. Significant gusts also increase wear of the blades, aging them prematurely and increasing the risk of catastrophic failure.

Post reply on HN