Apart from line loss due to electricity traveling long distances from generation source to consumption point, if wind projects require 200 miles of transmission line to reach the average point of electricity consumption in the grid and natural gas plants require only 20 miles of transmission line to reach the average point of electricity consumption in the grid (because the latter can be built closer to population centers), should not the ratepayer be advised that the associated transmission cost for wind is ten times that for natural gas? As a basic consumer protection, should not ratepayers be dissuaded of the notion that wind power is free energy?
It's high time for wind projects to fully pay for the amount of transmission they cause and use. Ratepayers should never pay any of this cost.
Directly assigning transmission losses would expose the true costs of delivering electricity from remote locations where renewable resources have been concentrated, NRG and Calpine said, especially West Texas which has seen an over-building of renewables that have overwhelmed the existing transmission infrastructure.......................Trump recently nominated a critic of renewable power and subsidies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees power markets. Bernard McNamee, a former staffer at the conservative Austin think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Marc Brown, President, New England Ratepayers Association at energy forum:
Brown discussed the importance of having a more rationale energy policy:
"Too often regulators and elected officials do not understand or appreciate the impacts that political policies are having on our energy markets. As a result, we as a region, and even nationally, are headed down a path of increased costs and decreased reliability," Brown said. "Businesses, families, generators, utilities and anyone concerned about the escalating costs of electricity should join to fight for less government interference and more open energy markets."
BROOKFIELD is a major player with 70,000 employees in their system, and they have a huge investment in Hydro. Anyone ever contact them?
Most grid scale wind projects are exposed to curtailment rules, where they can be ordered to shut down when their output might put the transmission lines and/or substations in jeopardy of overload.
I've been looking at the other side of the mismatch, which is excess production that is rejected by the grid. At the residential level I believe that smart meters can turn off the flow from small PV projects when there is no need.
What is the impact on wind farm production when there is an excess of power being produced; what is the cost of shutting down and is this regarded as a 'loss'?
It appears the system operator for Texas ( ERCOT ) does not factor losses in it's wholesale electricity pricing formula. ISO-NE does. If ERCOT was to implement losses as a price factor, the price factored due to wind project generation would lower the local marginal prices as we see happen in Maine often. This is to provide incentives for generation to locate close to loads, reducing losses. Unfortunately, most of Maine's wind receives their revenue from Southern New England PPAs at set prices which ignore loss factors. This is one of the reasons Maine electricity prices are the lowest in New England as our prices correlate to wholesale marginal pricing, whereas PPA prices are a fixed price, and almost always with annual escalations.
Falmouth: "Take Notice" Vestas Wind Turbine Noise Warning 110 Db
© 2023 Created by Webmaster. Powered by
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