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

231–240 of 278 posts

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

#231

Post by panarky »

chongli wrote: post #136
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is an LNG tanker safe from a bad guy on a fishing boat?

https://youtu.be/C3p96VNXSNQ?t=22

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

#232

Post by logfromblammo »

dwighttk wrote: post #222
chongli wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How many tankers would you need to noticeably change the explosion power of an average sized volcano eruption?

How about an LNG bunkering facility in Naples, near the Campi Flegrei volcano?

Maybe you start with a minor eruption/earthquake, and the LNG disaster breaches a larger magma chamber to cause a larger eruption? Then you can blanket Europe in ash and start up the typical disaster movie plot, where you follow the Chicken Little and their family as they try to escape the disaster radius.

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

#233

Post by logfromblammo »

icebraining wrote: post #81
exabrial wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a distinct possibility your world view is incorrect then if this surprises you. The big misunderstanding the blue has about the red is who pays for things. It's not the GOP hates renewables, they just want the private industry to pay for them, not the taxpayer. Let the cheapest energy source win! Wind and solar absolutely have a great chance at doing that. That doesn't make a good story though... It just stin…

I wouldn't call it a misunderstanding; at most, it's an over-generalization: "The bill would require all utilities serving Wyoming by 2019 to obtain their electricity from sources other than commercial-scale wind or solar operations. Utilities would be fined $10 per renewable energy megawatt hour used in a year, the amount of energy it takes to power 82 Wyoming homes." https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-01-…

There's an awkward unit to use--dollar per megawatt-hour per year?

Perhaps it would be clearer to say $0.01 per kilowatt-hour, though it is unclear whether the fine is levied annually, or only for energy used over a duration of one specific year.

That bit about powering 82 homes just does not compute. Homes are powered with watts. American homes average 1.25 kW. One MW powers 800 homes. One MW-h spread out over the span of one year (8760 h) is 114 W, which is enough to power about 9% of one home. So if your Wyoming home uses 9% grid-tied renewables for its power, you would probably pay $10 extra per year for this fine.

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

#234

Post by jhayward »

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.

In Texas there would most likely be no such subsidy.

ERCOT runs markets for multiple aspects of energy generation, transmission, and management. Standby or peaking can be just another of those. As long as it is cheaper to provide that service via gas turbines they will win. If batteries become cheaper, they will start taking market share.

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

#235

Post by toomuchtodo »

jhayward wrote: post #234
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.

In Texas there would most likely be no such subsidy. ERCOT runs markets for multiple aspects of energy generation, transmission, and management. Standby or peaking can be just another of those. As long as it is cheaper to provide that service via gas turbines they will win. If batteries become cheaper, they will start taking market share.

My hope is that renewables push the cost per kWh higher for natural gas (due to its run time dwindling) beyond the point where utility scale battery storage is feasible, at which point it's game over for natural gas for demand response/light peaking.

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

#236

Post by Cshelton »

jostmey wrote: post #42

I live in Dallas Texas and buy renewable (wind or solar) electricity from the grid. It cost only marginally more

Also in Dallas, my cost for nonrenewable was about $0.075/KwH, my new contract which is 100% renewable is $0.08/KwH. The added money goes to further renewable energy in the state. Easy decision. Only costs be about $5.00 more per month, I won't miss the money.

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

#237

Post by toomuchtodo »

cylinder wrote: post #156
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.

Wouldn't that subsidy delay the cost drop in batteries? Instead those expenditures can go towards batteries, which will be costly, but will hasten the price drops and technological development of batteries.

Not if the subsidy targets the function of capacity availability, instead of targeting a specific generation type. In that case, batteries and natural gas would compete for the subsidy, with batteries eventually winning.

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

#238

Post by cestith »

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…

If people aren't paying the generators, they don't maintain their windmills and can't send electricity into distribution. In Texas you pay the retail company that's selling you the power. The distribution is a wholesale company that just sells the generator distribution capacity and maintains the lines.

So yes, if people stopped buying from companies selling wind and solar only the companies selling gas and coal would be putting energy into the grid.

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

#239

Post by agentgt »

They didn't really go into the wind surfing enough to point out why Texas is actually damn good for water sailing sports.

One of the non obvious reasons is the inner gulf coast has very little chop. Chop (which is basically little waves of water turbulence at the surface as well as constant little swells) massively decreases boat/board speed even for planing boats/boards.

Of course large swells are generally worse (with some exceptions... like wanting to do tricks and if your going downwind).

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

#240

Post by 1024core »

> It blows the most in the dead of night, precisely when there’s the least demand for electricity. That’s true for just about every wind-blown spot across the U.S., from the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains in California to the coastal plains of North Carolina.

I live in Northern California (SF). Winds don't start until about 1pm or so. And it's almost never windy after 8pm.

I think this pattern holds for most coastal places, because as the sun reaches the peak, it heats up land, forcing the air over the land to rise; but the water doesn't heat up as much, and hence winds come in from offshore, to replace the air rising above the land.

Post reply on HN