Comments - Maine PUC Approves Wind Power Contract for Old First Wind Gang - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-28T20:58:44Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A170835&xn_auth=noThe PUC and Gov. Mills are ju…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-07-18:4401701:Comment:1713152019-07-18T16:25:30.992ZRichard McDonald/Saving Mainehttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/richardmcdonald
<p>The PUC and Gov. Mills are just getting started with the PUC issuing RFP's for renewable sources, With the SNE states going offshore, that former cash cow is evaporating. Mills is going to fulfill her newly upped RPS with domestic wind and solar. Her dreams of offshore wind development are just that - dreams. The Aqua Ventas boondoggle is still struggling to find traction with serious investors, so any hope of bring offshore wind on line in the next ten years is another fantasy. Once Mills…</p>
<p>The PUC and Gov. Mills are just getting started with the PUC issuing RFP's for renewable sources, With the SNE states going offshore, that former cash cow is evaporating. Mills is going to fulfill her newly upped RPS with domestic wind and solar. Her dreams of offshore wind development are just that - dreams. The Aqua Ventas boondoggle is still struggling to find traction with serious investors, so any hope of bring offshore wind on line in the next ten years is another fantasy. Once Mills gets the NECEC project approved, CMP will be open for business (the quid pros quo for NECEC) for wind developers chomping at the bit to get a shovel in the ground to capture what's left of Fed subsidies. </p> Weaver Wind will sell energy…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-07-18:4401701:Comment:1710902019-07-18T02:21:17.876ZLong Islanderhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LongIslander
<h1><a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/featured/weaver-wind-will-sell-energy-to-emera/" rel="bookmark" title="Weaver Wind will sell energy to Emera">Weaver Wind will sell energy to Emera</a></h1>
<p><a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/featured/weaver-wind-will-sell-energy-to-emera/" target="_blank">https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/featured/weaver-wind-will-sell-energy-to-emera/</a></p>
<h1><a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/featured/weaver-wind-will-sell-energy-to-emera/" rel="bookmark" title="Weaver Wind will sell energy to Emera">Weaver Wind will sell energy to Emera</a></h1>
<p><a href="https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/featured/weaver-wind-will-sell-energy-to-emera/" target="_blank">https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/featured/weaver-wind-will-sell-energy-to-emera/</a></p> It does seem as though we're…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-07-15:4401701:Comment:1711132019-07-15T17:14:54.640ZPenny Grayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/PennyGray
<p>It does seem as though we're moving in reverse, faster and faster. Regressive speeding could prove to be very dangerous.</p>
<p>It does seem as though we're moving in reverse, faster and faster. Regressive speeding could prove to be very dangerous.</p> Dan,
Wind displacing gas turb…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-07-13:4401701:Comment:1711082019-07-13T22:52:18.967ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>Dan,</p>
<p>Wind displacing gas turbine plants is a fable. </p>
<p>Germany with more and more wind is putting in MORE of the 60%-efficient gas turbine plants.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Gas turbine plants will NOT be displaced, because they are needed for peaking, filling in and balancing the variable, intermittent wind electricity.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cost Shifting From Millionaire Owners to Struggling Ratepayers and Taxpayers …</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Dan,</p>
<p>Wind displacing gas turbine plants is a fable. </p>
<p>Germany with more and more wind is putting in MORE of the 60%-efficient gas turbine plants.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Gas turbine plants will NOT be displaced, because they are needed for peaking, filling in and balancing the variable, intermittent wind electricity.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cost Shifting From Millionaire Owners to Struggling Ratepayers and Taxpayers </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Clever multi-millionaires have known about wind and solar being much more expensive compared with existing generation (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) for at least 25 years.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/IER_LCOE2019Final-.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/IER_LCOE2019Final-.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>By beating the drums of climate change and global warming, and using clever lobbyists in the halls of Congress and State legislatures, they were able to get all sorts of goodies, such as upfront cash grants, upfront tax credits, low-cost loans, generous, above-market, feed-in tariffs, production tax credits, and loan interest and asset depreciation write-offs to avoid paying income taxes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All that enables them, and others to claim wind and solar is equivalent and competitive with other workers. What more could these millionaires ask for?</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Cost Shifting</strong>: Here is a partial list of the costs that were <strong>shifted</strong>, i.e., <strong>not charged </strong>to wind and solar plant owners, to make wind and solar appear less costly than in reality to the lay public and legislators.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The various forms of grid-stabilizing inertia (presently provided by synchronous gas, coal, oil, nuclear, bio and hydro plants).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) The filling-in, peaking and balancing by traditional generators (mostly gas turbines in New England), due to wind and solar variability and intermittency, 24/7/365. Their random outputs require the other generators to inefficiently ramp up and down their outputs at part load, and to inefficiently make more frequent starts and stops, which also causes more wear and tear, all at no cost to wind and solar owners.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the required up and down ramping of the gas turbines, which imparts added costs to owners for which they likely would not be paid: And the wind and solar erratic output is coddled by government programs and subsidies!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Owners of traditional generators:<span> </span></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>-</strong> Have<strong>less annual production</strong>to cover power plant costs, which jeopardizes the economic viability of their plants.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Are left with <strong>inefficient remaining production</strong>(more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh), due to up and down ramping at part load, and due to more frequent starts and stops, which leads to less fuel and CO2 reduction than claimed, and increased costs for owners. See URL</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Have more wear and tear of their gas turbine plants, which further adds to owner costs</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: All of this is quite similar to a car efficiently operating at a steady 55 mph, versus a car inefficiently operating at continuously varying speeds between 45 mph to 65 mph, and accelerating for frequent starts and decelerating for frequent stops.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3) Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grid with many solar systems. They would quickly offset downward spikes due to variable cloud cover. See URL.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plants-require-large-scale-battery-system" target="_blank">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plants-require-large-scale-battery-system</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>4) Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as a) daily gas turbine plant down and up ramping, b) utility-scale storage and c) demand management.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: GMP in Vermont, has determined 70 of its 150 substations will eventually need upgrades to avoid “transmission ground fault overvoltage,” (TGFOV), if more solar is added per requirements of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan. This is nothing new, as utilities in southern Germany have been dealing with these issues for over ten years, which has contributed to German households having the highest electric rates (about 30 eurocent/kWh) in Europe.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5) Grid-related costs, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect the remotely distributed wind and solar, and to deal with variable and intermittent wind and solar on the grid. Those grid items usually are utilized at the low capacity factors of wind and solar, i.e., a lot of hardware doing little work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6) Utility-scale electricity storage (presently provided by the world’s traditional fuel supply system).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Solar-Wind-Power-Variability-Price.pdf">https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Solar-Wind-Power-Variability-Price.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The above 6 items are entirely <strong>separate</strong><span> </span>from the high levels of <strong>direct and indirect</strong>subsidies. They serve to make wind and solar <strong>appear</strong><span>to be </span>much less costly than in reality. See sections 1 and 2 and Appendix.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All that enables wind and solar proponents to endlessly proclaim: “Wind and solar are competitive with fossil and nuclear”.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Example of Cost Shifting</strong>: For example, to bring wind electricity from the Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, about 1000 miles of transmission was built at a capital cost of $7 billion. The entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., it appeared as a surcharge on residential electric bills. Wind in Texas would have been much more expensive, if the owning and operating cost, c/kWh, of those transmission lines were added to the cost of wind.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Example of Cost Shifting</strong>: Often the expensive grid connection of <strong>offshore wind plants</strong>, say from 20 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, across the island, then about 7 additional miles under water, and then to the reinforced mainland grid, is not separately stated in the capital cost estimates, i.e., all or part of it is provided by the utilities that buy the electricity under PPAs to make PPA-pricing appear smaller than in reality. That cost would be “socialized”, i.e., it appears as a surcharge on residential electric bills, or is added to the rate base.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Wind and Solar Wholesale Prices in NE</strong>: Here are some wholesale prices of wind electricity RE folks in New England, especially in Maine, do not want to talk about. They would rather dream RE fantasies, obfuscate/fudge the numbers, and aim to convert others to their dream scenarios, somewhat like religious missionaries. See table 2.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Comments on Below Table</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Indirect subsidies </strong>are due to loan interest deduction and depreciation deductions from taxable incomes.</p>
<p><strong>Direct subsidies </strong>are due to up front grants, waiving of state sales taxes, and/or local property (municipal and school) taxes. See URL.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>An owner of ridgeline wind would have to sell his output at 18.8 c/kWh, if the owner were not getting the benefits of cost shifting and upfront cash grants and subsidies.</p>
<p>That owner could sell his output at 16.4 c/kWh, if his costs were reduced due to cost shifting.</p>
<p>He could sell his output at 9 c/kWh, if on top of the cost shifting he also received various subsidies. The same rationale holds for solar. See table.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>In NE construction costs of ridgeline wind and offshore wind are high/MW, and the capacity factor of wind is about 0.285 and of solar about 0.14. Thus, NE wind and solar have high prices/MWh. See table.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In US areas, such as the Great Plains, Texas Panhandle and Southwest, with much lower construction costs/MW and much better sun and wind conditions than New England, wind and solar electricity prices/MWh are less.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those lower prices often are mentioned, without mentioning other factors, by the pro-RE media and financial consultants, such as Bloomberg, etc., which surely deceives the lay public</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Future electricity cost/MWh, due to the planned build-out of NE offshore wind added to the planned build-out of NE onshore wind, likely would not significantly change, because of the high costs of grid extensions and upgrades to connect the wind plants and to provide significantly increased connections to the New York and Canadian grids.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE: </strong>For the past 20 years, Germany and Denmark have been increasing their connections to nearby grids, because of their increased wind and solar.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The subsidy percentages in below table are from a cost analysis of NE wind and solar in this article. See URL.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for-2200-kw-field-mounted-solar-system-in">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for-2200-kw-field-mounted-solar-system-in</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values for 2018 are represented in below table.</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>NE Wind/Solar</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">NE Wind</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>%</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>NE Solar</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Ridgeline</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">Large-scale</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Price to utility</p>
</td>
<td><p>No direct/indirect subsidies</p>
</td>
<td><p>No cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">18.8</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>100</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>23.5</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">100</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Less cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">2.4</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>13</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>2.1</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Price to utility</p>
</td>
<td><p>No direct/indirect subsidies</p>
</td>
<td><p>With cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">16.4</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>87</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>21.4</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">91</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Less subsidy, wind</p>
</td>
<td><p>45% of 16.4</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">7.4</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">39</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Less subsidy, solar</p>
</td>
<td><p>45% of 21.4</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9.6</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">41</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Price to utility*</p>
</td>
<td><p>With direct/indirect subsidies</p>
</td>
<td><p>With cost shifting</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>48</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>11.8</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">50</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>* Owner prices to utilities are based on recent 20-year electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in New England. These prices would have been about 48% to 50% higher without the direct and indirect subsidies and the cost shifting. Similar percentages apply in areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW, than New England. The prices, c/MWh, in those areas are lower than New England.</strong></p> Wind replacing the output of…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-07-13:4401701:Comment:1708432019-07-13T15:14:40.662ZDan McKayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/DanMcKay
<p><span>Wind replacing the output of natural gas fired plants at the same price. How technologically regressive .</span></p>
<p><span>Wind replacing the output of natural gas fired plants at the same price. How technologically regressive .</span></p>