The California and Texas Greenouts, Renewables Show Again That They are UNRELIABLE for GRID USE .

The California and Texas Greenouts  by (WSJ)

Renewables show again that they aren’t reliable to power the grid.

Electric grid operators in Texas and California are again urging residents to conserve power amid a sweltering heat wave to avoid blackouts. Keeping your thermostat at 78 degrees during the summer may be the green new normal.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot) warned this week that a large number of unexpected power plant outages combined with surging demand is straining the grid. Meantime, California’s Independent System Operator forecast that electricity demand might exceed supply several days this week. For residents in both states, this must feel like deja vu.

A wind turbine in Papalote, Texas, June 15.

PHOTO: BRANDON BELL/GETTY IMAGES
Listen to Article  4 minutesSource: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Last August Californians experienced rolling blackouts amid a heat wave that engulfed the Southwest. California generates half of its electricity from solar during summer afternoons, but it didn’t have enough power in the evenings when the sun faded. It also relies heavily on imports, but other states didn’t have power to spare.

Now the problem is reoccurring while a severe drought also limits hydropower. In a few years the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is scheduled to retire. The plant provides nearly 10% of the state’s power and backs up intermittent renewables. But green groups want the grid to run completely on solar, wind and batteries. Blackouts could soon become as common as wildfires.

Californians who have moved to Texas are discovering that electric power is as green and flaky there too. Texas has drawn scores of wind developers cashing in on the federal renewable electricity production tax credit, which pays them for each unit of power they generate regardless of whether it’s needed

In March, wind made up a larger share of Texas’s power generation than gas. Ercot expects wind capacity could increase by more than a third this year. Nuclear and fossil fuel-powered plants are struggling to compete with wind, which can make money even when wholesale prices go negative. Many have shut down or are skimping on maintenance.

Millions of Texans lost power in February amid an Arctic blast that froze power plant equipment including wind turbines. Climate activists blamed fossil-fuel plants for not rescuing the state though they supplied power that more than compensated for the ebbing wind power. Texas was also berated for not “weatherizing” power plants to operate in frigid conditions.

But heat waves are common in Texas. So what’s the excuse now? Ercot says unexpected power plant outages eliminated 12,000 megawatts of capacity—enough to power about two million homes—about 80% of which was coal, nuclear or gas.

Yet according to Energy Information Administration data (see the nearby chart), wind energy plunged by two-thirds since late last week while gas-power generation has increased by more than half. Coal and nuclear have held steady. In sum, some gas plants had problems, but most were operating as expected but still couldn’t compensate for the huge reduction in wind power.

A big problem is that subsidies and mandates have spurred an over-development of renewables, which has resulted in gas plants operating at lower levels or even idle much of the time. Keeping standby units in top condition is hugely expensive. So when plants are required to run all out to meet surging demand or back up renewables, problems crop up—as they did this week.

This is the fossil-fuel-free future that folks in the other 48 states have to look foward to under Democratic climate plans. Pro survival tip: Buy a diesel generator—while you still can.

WSJ Opinion: Is a Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Even Possible?
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
UP NEXT
WSJ Opinion: Is a Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Even Possible?
WSJ Opinion: Is a Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Even Possible?
Potomac Watch: As Democrats redefine infrastructure to include climate change, green energy and union worker protections, Republicans push for a bipartisan bill that's not "socialism camouflaged as infrastructure." Images: Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the June 17, 2021, print edition.

Views: 52

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 21, 2021 at 5:00pm

Former President Trump on the 2020 presidential election: 'I have not conceded'
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/former-pre...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 20, 2021 at 4:57pm

LEGISLATING ENERGY POVERTY
A Case Study of How California’s and New York’s Climate Change Policies Are Increasing Energy Costs and Hurting the Economy
https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Legislat...

Comment by Willem Post on June 19, 2021 at 3:22pm

It is good to discuss the merits of various clauses in the “We the People” US and VT Constitutions.

The Vermont Legislature, composed of elected representatives of the people, has the power for making laws, rules and regulations for running all elections in Vermont.

The Legislature is not allowed to delegate these powers to any entities of the Executive Branch, including the Secretary of State.

If a STATE Legislature wants to conduct a forensic audit of an election, no Executive Branch entity is allowed to prevent/obstruct it, and the US Department of Justice has no legal authority to interfere

The SOVEREIGN STATES created the federal government, not the other way around.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/preperation-of-288-000...

Comment by Willem Post on June 19, 2021 at 3:20pm

This article has a capital cost estimate of the US and the World GOING GREEN.

It would require TENS OF TRILLIONS of dollars

EXCERPT:

WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

 

World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.

See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

 

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.

 

PARIS AGREEMENTS

 

China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

 

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.

However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.

Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

 

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.

The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.

The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.

The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.

 

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE WORLD AND US

 

The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.

The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

 

50% RE by 2050

 

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y

 

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

 

100% RE by 2050

 

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y

 

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

 

SUMMARY OF "BIG-PICTURE" CAPEX FOR THE WORLD AND THE US

 

World More-Inclusive CAPEX

 

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.

 

This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/fundi...

 

NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-must-halve-emission...

 

US More-Inclusive CAPEX

 

The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279

 

A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion

 

The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.

 

It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.

Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.

 

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:

 

Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.

Nuclear plants about 60 years

Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years

Wind turbine systems about 20 years

Solar systems about 25 years

Battery systems about 15 years

 

Additional Considerations

 

1) Fossil Fuel Feedstocks: There are a vast number of systems and activities requiring fossil fuel feedstocks to produce millions of every-day products and services. What would replace these fossil fuel feedstocks? Biofuels would require more than a billion of acres of fertile land.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-land-area-needed-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

 

2) Rebuilding for Energy Efficiency: Reforming transportation systems and vehicles, and rebuilding almost all buildings, including housing, would be required to reduce their energy consumption by at least 50%. The world fleet of cruise ships and private yachts and private planes would be outlawed?

 

Any costs (in the US at least $50 trillion) associated with these 2 items are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.

Any costs for on-going replacements of mostly, short-life RE systems, are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.

 

NOTE: Achieving 100% RE by 2050, as a slogan, sounds attractive. It likely would be not feasible for a multitude of reasons.

World RE was about 100.18 quads, or 15.98% of total energy consumption in 2019, per EIA.

EIA projects world RE at 252.25 quads, or about 252.2 / 910.69 = 27.7% of world energy consumption by end 2050

See table 1A.

See URL, click on PPT to access data, click on page 4 of PowerPoint for inter-active graph.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

3) Reliability of Electric Service: High levels of wind and solar on electric grids would require an HVDC overlay grid, connected at many points to the existing HVAC grids.

 

The HVDC overlay grid would move around electricity to wherever it would be needed, to ensure 99.97% reliability of service throughout the US. The CAPEX for a US overlay grid would be about a $400 to $500 billion.

 

The CAPEX for site-specific, custom-designed, utility-scale, storage would be about $400 billion/TWh, if $400/kWh, delivered as AC.

 

For example: The New England grid, fed-to-grid of about 110 TWh/y, would need about 9 to 10 TWh of storage (battery storage or pumped-hydro storage) to cover wind/solar lulls and seasonal variations, if it had 1) much more wind and solar, and 2) no gas-fired CCGT plants, and 3) no nuclear plants, and 4) no major transmission connections to NY and Quebec.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england

 

4) Standards for Determining CO2 Reduction: Presently, there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries! The opportunities for cheating/fudging/obfuscation are endless.

 

- The CO2 of upstream energy is usually ignored.

- Energy systems are rarely analyzed on an A-to-Z basis, because various RE promotion programs would not be anywhere near as attractive, regarding annual costs and CO2 reduction. See Appendix.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 17, 2021 at 2:27pm

Raffensperger’s Own Team Was Saying “Bad, Bad Things” Were Happening in Fulton County Elections — He Ignored Them and Attacked Trump Instead (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/raffenspergers-team-saying...

October Flashback: Far-Left Salon Agrees – The Attorney General Has No Legal Authority to Interfere in 2020 Vote Counts
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/far-left-salon-agrees-atto...

No Longer Just Theories… The Evidence Proves a Deep State Conspiracy of the Highest Order
https://noqreport.com/2021/06/17/no-longer-just-theories-the-eviden...

The Tucker Carlson Solution to Deal With a Corrupt Intelligence Apparatus and FBI Will Not Work, Here’s Why
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/16/the-tucker-car...

Comment by Willem Post on June 17, 2021 at 1:09pm

SOCIALISM CAMOUFLAGED AS INFRASTRUCTURE 

Great expression 

I have to remember it.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service