Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

131–140 of 278 posts

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

#131
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." 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?

That question actually has an answer. I suspect they may be right in that an underground pipe is better than high voltage wires being carried over land.

But I've long thought that underground high voltage power transmission built underneath interstates would fare much better than overhead poles.

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

#132

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.

"Mini-nuke" isn't a very accurate comparison. In the event of a leak, the liquid fuel would need to flow out of the tank and turn into vapor before it could catch fire and burn. As a liquid or highly concentrated vapor it's not flammable. It needs to mix with air first.

The result would be a cloud of gas that burns violently for several minutes, depending upon wind and the speed of the leak. Not the instantaneous, crater-making release of energy that a thermonuclear device produces.

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

#133
The last lines of the article elicited a bit of cynicism:

"That’s because the market is so oversupplied that it’s even difficult for the wind guys to make money at these electricity rates. And besides, it’s hard to acquire land by the water at reasonable prices."

“It’s pretty slim pickings right now,” Ferguson said. “God is not manufacturing more coastal property".

In 70 years it will be nice and cheap at this rate, which is ironically and sadly just the sort of problem cheap wind power would help alleviate.

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

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's true but we don't need to, energy markets are large enough over the distances that we can ship those electrons. And 'damn hard' is not the same as impossible, there have been studies done on how to ship electricity from Africa to Europe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-north-africa-... That's not quite Japan or Europe from the US but it would be intercontinental. The biggest hurdles are politica…

But we do need to ship energy across markets over long distances. There's nothing on the horizon that is going to end that need.

Energy is still largely in the domain of geopolitics. Russia can turn off gas shipments to Europe. Qatar can be blockaded. Entire governments can veer towards collapse threatening supplies (Venezuela). Coalitions may decide to forcibly remove another nation's supplies from the market, as was the case with Iran.

That leaves international energy markets inherently inefficient and susceptible to disruption (not the SV kind). When those disruptions occur, the ability to quickly ship vast quantities of energy becomes absolutely vital.

This has been best demonstrated during periods when OPEC refused to supply certain countries because of their ties to Israel. The ability to quickly shift supplies from non-OPEC sources around the market, due to the fungibility of oil and the ease of shipment, kept the lights on across much of the world.

A fair counterpoint to this argument is the reduced dependency on energy produced by potentially hostile powers that could come about with the advent of renewables like solar and wind. However, as technology improves to allow electricity transmission across greater distances (like, say, the Mediterranean), do we really reduce dependencies on potentially hostile nations? Electricity isn't fungible if it can't be transmitted to the markets where gaps are created by geopolitics.

If, say, Tunisia decided to cut off France from a hypothetical trans-Med grid, would France be able to find enough energy from neighboring grids with excess supply? I don't know.

So long as energy decisions are inherently political, the market needs the ability to ship energy quickly and on-demand to fill gaps created by the whims of politicians and autocrats.

Finally, I'll note that the Allies won World War II in large part because of their superior ability to ship energy wherever it was needed in any theater of operations and moments when those supply chains broke down often led to significant Axis advances and prolonged the war, such as Eisenhower's difficult decision to deprive Patton of gasoline in order to keep other parts of the Allied advance moving across Europe.

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

#135
post #93

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. 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.

This is more likely due to subsidies. The government wants more solar so it pays the producer to make it. They can sell it for any price down to the negative of that subsidy (i.e. pass on 99% of the subsidy to someone else) and still make money. If it displaces fossil fuels then the government has succeeded in achieving their aims with the subsidy and everyone is happy.

I believe solar (and wind) can generally curtail themselves, so if they are exporting power to the grid then it's because it's in their economic interest to do so.

Some in depth info here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/An-Illustrated-...

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

#136
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason people have this idea that LNG tankers are a big bomb waiting to go up, but that's not really true. Vapor cloud detonation has never been considered particularly likely, and never documented as far as I know. Mostly it seems the vapors that hit the right mix of oxygen and such would burn pretty rapidly, while the warmer gas began to rise. It would certainly be a large fire for a while, but shouldn't h…

The scary bit for LNG is a BLEVE (Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). Even non-flammable liquids undergoing a BLEVE can be incredibly destructive, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 So it's nothing to do with vapor cloud detonation, that's pretty much irrelevant compared to the destruction of the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas.

I think a tanker ship is pretty safe from a BLEVE. Those explosions usually result from a tank being heated continuously by a very hot fire underneath it. I'm not sure where you would find one of those at sea unless the tanker wrecked on top of an erupting volcano.

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

#137
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Leveraging to the hilt and operating at a loss is par for the course in the oil industry. It's very common, especially when new plays open up, either from technological or political advances.

In the case of fracking, everyone was scrambling to get extraction rights on any piece of land that looked promising. Often that involved massive speculation and debt.

Inevitably the downturn comes and shakes out the players who don't have the capital or discipline to survive. The industry consolidates and production continues. The cost of fracking has continued to decline as frackers learn how to be more efficient in order to be profitable with crude prices at their current low levels. Even if the current players went bankrupt, others will pop up once prices rise again.

American frackers have effectively replaced Saudi Arabia as the world's swing producer. Unfortunately for them that means learning how to withstand wild boom-and-bust cycles.

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

#138

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. 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…

The incentive not to upgrade is the incredible cost. Why upgrade when the unit economics make no sense? Of course there are some that would suggest the government should make the unit economics work by imposing heavy taxes – that would work except electricity bills would skyrocket due to a de facto price floor. I would argue that “immediate” action is unnecessary as the economics gradually improve, so will infrastruc…

Out of market deals with the government where wind and solar and even hydro generators get prices way above market rates are what is driving the adoption of renewables in Canada.

For the market to create the incentive for renewables the price of power would have had to go up a lot, or the externalities like pollution applied to gas/coal so that the price would go up, but still generation takes so long to plan approve and build and then so long to pay back that markets with varying prices are a bad mechanism. The price would have to be too high for too long than is politically palatable to encourage construction of new generation, and even then why not just build a gas plant.

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

#139
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." 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?

One of the holy grails of solar is syngas: using solar thermal power to convert CO2/water to a mix of hydrogen and methane. If you can do it efficiently enough, the gas is the energy storage and you can either pipe it or use it to fuel a NG turbine/combined-cycle plant which will be more thermodynamically efficient than a simpler solar->steam cycle plant.

The reason it's a holy grail is because there are some major materials science breakthroughs that need to happen before it's feasible. Since the sun's energy cycles rapidly on the minute/second timescale, whatever receiver you're using to convert inputs to syngas needs to not be destroyed by that periodic, rapid temperature (and thus stress) cycling.

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

#140
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…

15% capacity factor is reasonable for rooftop, but utility scale PV in the United States was at 27% last year: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... Emissions are pretty obviously not going to peak by 2020, unless there's some sort of civilization-smashing catastrophe in the next few years. Large scale active carbon dioxide removal measures will be needed later, or natural processes will eve…

27% is better, though from a quick look it applies only to the US, and in Europe it looks closer to 15%. I need to take time tomorrow to find good sources on this.

I'm not convinced by carbon storage, though I don't know enough about it to be sure. It is my understanding that it is either energy-hungry (so useless because we don't and likely won't have enough carbon-neutral energy surplus) or pretty slow (also useless). And completely unproven at large or even moderate scales, too.

Post reply on HN