Carbon Wars: The New EPA Rules to Reduce Carbon Emissions at U.S. Power Plants

[derekt75]

I agree that many in the middle class CAN'T afford this... BUT as a society we have MORE than sufficient resources and EVERYONE will benefit in the end. If you have the resources to power your life with the sun and you're not powering your life with the sun there is something VERY wrong with your intelligence or ethics.

Well, I heartily agree that democracy is broken, and my ballot-initiative-loving state of CA is a poster child for what can happen when you let people vote for things they don't understand. I'd guess that 90%+ of the voters don't know the difference between $20 million and $20 billion (well, we know that the b word is bigger, but we don't know that one costs me $10 while the other costs me $10,000).

I also agree that as a society we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and I feel that government regulation (such as the EPA rule) is necessary.

However, I strongly disagree that anyone that can power their life with the sun is unethical if they don't. I have solar because it saves me money and helps to save the planet. but solar doesn't save money for everyone, and solar is not necessarily the most efficient way for every individual to make the world better.

I also think that the phrases "can't afford X" or "have sufficient resources for X" are too binary. We generally can't afford everything that we want, and we simply must choose what's more important. If my electric bill goes up too much, maybe I need to give up my cell phone. As a country, can we afford a higher risk of devastating hurricanes through inaction? Do you want your electric bill to go up $10/year, or do you want your share of funding FEMA to go up by $20/year? In fact, I wish our CA ballot initiatives provided clearer choices. Rather than asking the voters if we can afford new soccer fields, instead ask us if we want smaller classroom sizes or if we want the soccer fields. or do we want both with an average parcel tax increase of $200?
Many on this forum had sufficient resources to buy a P85 Tesla instead of a Leaf. For those of us that chose the P85, are we all unethical for dumping so much more money into this electric car rather than donating all of that money to carbonfund.org? Is the person that gave $20k to support foster kids unethical for giving it to only certain kids rather than on something that will reduce CO2?

Anyway, my point is that while it's unethical to not consider the greater good, saying that everyone should buy into any one cause feels too dogmatic to me.

my $0.02,
Derek

 

[nwdiver]

Anyway, my point is that while it's unethical to not consider the greater good, saying that everyone should buy into any one cause feels too dogmatic to me.


Derek

Perhaps a more "precise" way to phrase my statement on ethics would be;

"If you have the resources to break your addiction to fossil fuels and don't then there is something seriously wrong with your ethics or intelligence"

I do accept that nuclear and wind have a place in our energy mix... my comment was mostly geared toward people that view the "Green movement" as an option not an ethical obligation. The name itself reeks of political correctness. "Going Green" makes it sound optional. When I became the chair of my companies "Go Green Team" the first thing I did was rebrand it as the CSR committee. "Corporate Social Responsibility"

I know plenty of people making north of $200k that happily gobble up >4000kWh and >100 gallons of gasoline every month when they can EASILY afford to live the same quality of life while leaving a smaller mess for their kids to clean up. Just takes a little effort. Knowing what we know about the potential effects of climate change it's hard not to view those people as monsters or morons.

It there's a moral paradigm that condones improving your quality of life at the expense of your children I am unaware of it...

Many on this forum had sufficient resources to buy a P85 Tesla instead of a Leaf. For those of us that chose the P85, are we all unethical for dumping so much more money into this electric car rather than donating all of that money to carbonfund.org? Is the person that gave $20k to support foster kids unethical for giving it to only certain kids rather than on something that will reduce CO2?

I did buy a P85 vs a LEAF and to be honest at times I do feel guilty about the difference I could have made had I put that $70k somewhere else... BUT... there's a world of difference between doing NOTHING and not doing as much as you could have.

We all understand that the $$$ we make must exceed the $$$ we spend... perhaps it's time we start emphasizing the importance of ensuring the kWh we make exceed the kWh we consume... obviously that's not possible for everyone but it's a good goal.

 

[tigerade]

Here is a pretty level-headed, non-hyperbolic analysis of the EPA rules:

COLUMN-U.S. EPA goes (relatively) easy on coal: Kemp

 

[Reykjavik]

I don't think this type of regulation is going to drive costs up as much as some people think, especially if we subsidize installation costs. Coal is cheap, but sunlight is cheaper. Coal plants have a price, solar plants have a higher price.

We should expect a slight bump in the price associated with the new regulations being met, but soon enough the price should drop and stabilize, much as car prices have with the regulations in place there.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't think this type of regulation is going to drive costs up as much as some people think, especially if we subsidize installation costs. Coal is cheap, but sunlight is cheaper. Coal plants have a price, solar plants have a higher price.

We should expect a slight bump in the price associated with the new regulations being met, but soon enough the price should drop and stabilize, much as car prices have with the regulations in place there.

Agreed... here's some perspective...

The net worth of American households just hit a record high of $80T.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579423183397213204

The US generates ~2.7 Billion MWh of electricity from fossil fuels annually
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

Assuming $2/w and 4.5 hours of solar insolation the capital cost to generate 2.7 Billion MWh annually from solar is;
$3.2 Trillion (4% of our "net worth")

Estimated financial cost to the US for WW2 in 2011$;
$4.1 Trillion
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf

The argument can be made that our addiction to fossil fuels is potentially at least as great a threat to our quality of life as the axis powers were... shouldn't it deserve an equal investment?

 

[3mp_kwh]

Here is a pretty level-headed, non-hyperbolic analysis of the EPA rules:

COLUMN-U.S. EPA goes (relatively) easy on coal: Kemp

I think Edward Luce is correct, it's "massive bet on natural gas". All the stuff on "2005" start dates is something folks seem to be carried away with, too. A spreadsheet showing 2012 benchmarks, in terms of CO2, TWH and CO2/MWH is really the start point for targets that are actually going to be difficult for a lot of states.
Select-State Emission Rate Data:
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/where-you-live

One of the consistent things about this chart is that you can basically take EIA's monthly data, for TWH, sum it and get total 2012 figures. If you then subtract hydro and nuclear, you get very close to the rate-based divisor they use, as TWH. Because the pattern can be repeated for most states, it suggests to me they've eliminated nuclear twh from the calculation (accept for the 6% they go on about within the rule). Message - nuclear is not an accepted mitigation tool for CO2, in the EPA's eyes. States can keep it, (for the nominal 6% of nuke TWH add-back) but the new plants to come online are posited as having their impacts to CO2 deducted from the starting intensity. This means they don't count, and the EPA came out requesting comments on their presumption that installers of the plants really weren't banking on a carbon rule ever coming. -amazing, isn't it? Check pgs 210-220, of the 645pg rule.

Hence, the bet on natural gas. When you take any states electric resources and deduct hydro/nuke, you end up with CO2/MWH values that react more quickly to the switch. Wind and solar, etc, will fill out a lot, but won't likely total more than about 10% (EIA suggest we'll go from 12% - 16% with hydro too, but most agree their forecasting isn't as good as the record keeping :wink . Even CA is just about 1% solar generation, still, with PG&E making impressive forecasts for ~13% of their supply before rule's end.

I think a lot of this is possible, but am disheartened by EPA's approach to nuclear. It is as if they wanted to make it so confusing that they'd escape the news cycle, before anyone caught it. In the end, I think the intention is to make state plans look better, in contrast.

We run a 2Gt CO2 electric sector. The EPA plan anticipates we'll be 1.4-1.6Gt after this rule. I don't think its that hard, notwithstanding some states seemingly being in the cross-hairs. The rest of the world doing the same would mean perhaps 50, instead of 40 years, before we add 1,000Gt. How quickly things get worse will be what changes the American debate from hoax/real, to nuclear or not. China can do dozens of GW of solar panels, yearly, and they have a 58GW nuclear goal, by 2020. That mark, alone, would annually displace enough of their coal to entirely reach the EPA's goal.

We can fix it.

 

[David_Cary]

Agreed... here's some perspective...

The net worth of American households just hit a record high of $80T.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303824204579423183397213204

The US generates ~2.7 Billion MWh of electricity from fossil fuels annually
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm

Assuming $2/w and 4.5 hours of solar insolation the capital cost to generate 2.7 Billion MWh annually from solar is;
$3.2 Trillion (4% of our "net worth")

Estimated financial cost to the US for WW2 in 2011$;
$4.1 Trillion
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf

The argument can be made that our addiction to fossil fuels is potentially at least as great a threat to our quality of life as the axis powers were... shouldn't it deserve an equal investment?

Of course that math doesn't really work. You can't spend "net worth". You can't massively do anything at the same price as the small uptake now. You are neglecting storage which arguably doubles the cost (at least). My napkin math would suggest the actual price is 4x today's price or 16% of something we can't just "spend".

And if the US went completely solar over 10 years, the growth in China and India would probably swallow that entire reduction and we will be 20% poorer.

Oh yeah, we still need to replace all the cars. 100 million cars at $50k a piece (gen III?) - $5 Trillion. And that just assumes that new lithium mines are free....

 

[Jeff Miller]

One of the consistent things about this chart is that you can basically take EIA's monthly data, for TWH, sum it and get total 2012 figures. If you then subtract hydro and nuclear, you get very close to the rate-based divisor they use, as TWH. Because the pattern can be repeated for most states, it suggests to me they've eliminated nuclear twh from the calculation (accept for the 6% they go on about within the rule). Message - nuclear is not an accepted mitigation tool for CO2, in the EPA's eyes. States can keep it, (for the nominal 6% of nuke TWH add-back) but the new plants to come online are posited as having their impacts to CO2 deducted from the starting intensity. This means they don't count, and the EPA came out requesting comments on their presumption that installers of the plants really weren't banking on a carbon rule ever coming. -amazing, isn't it? Check pgs 210-220, of the 645pg rule.

I'm not an expert on the legislation, but I took a look at these pages after reading your remark and interpret what they are saying in the report on pages 214 and following a bit differently than you.

First, I think that in the table you link to they eliminate nuclear and hydro because they are expressing the benchmark emissions and goal emissions in terms of lbs per MWh rather than in just lbs. They want to focus on the part of the generating capacity which is currently fossil fuels, so they need to use fossil fuel generation as the denominator. (If they didn't do this, then states which are heavily nuclear, like IL at 50%, or hydro like Washington, would have to eliminate a much higher % of their fossil fuels to see comparable declines in their carbon intensity, lbs/MWh.)

Second, they keep 6% of the nuclear fleet in the denominator because this is the percent of the nuclear fleet that they estimate may be retired. They estimate that keeping these plants going is actually a relatively cheap way to meet the emissions goals, so they keep that 6% in the denominator of the baseline case.

Third, I read the section on the 5 new nuclear plants under construction on page 215 as saying that the EPA is counting on these plants coming on-line when they set the emissions goals for these states. The EPA counts the cost of the carbon mitigation from these plants at 0 because the EPA says the plants were started before the new rules, but that aside, I still read the EPA is saying that they expect (and want) these plants to be finished and are indeed counting on the emissions reductions from these plants when setting their goals.

So within the severe limitations of this kind of clumsy, inefficient, command and control regulation (at least as I understand it) I don't see this is anti-nuclear at all (thank god).

I agree though they are counting on gas, and that this seems very, very short sighted. It's unknown how long the current gas bonanza will last. Gas emits less CO2 than coal, but it still emits lots of CO2 (as well as some methane). And fracking has its own drawbacks.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think this type of regulation is going to drive costs up as much as some people think, especially if we subsidize installation costs. Coal is cheap, but sunlight is cheaper. Coal plants have a price, solar plants have a higher price.

Who is the "we" that is providing the subsidy?

Also, check out the price of residential electricity in Germany which has invested heavily in solar.


- - - Updated - - -

Of course that math doesn't really work. You can't spend "net worth". You can't massively do anything at the same price as the small uptake now. You are neglecting storage which arguably doubles the cost (at least). My napkin math would suggest the actual price is 4x today's price or 16% of something we can't just "spend".

I agree with you about storage, although a factor of 2x seems too low. Aside from those few places that have the right geology for hydro storage, I am unaware of any efficient, affordable, large scale storage options.

 

[nwdiver]

Germany is a good indicator of how expensive solar PV WAS... not how cheap it IS. Much of the Solar in Germany was installed <2008.

 

[3mp_kwh]

First, I think that in the table you link to they eliminate nuclear and hydro because they are expressing the benchmark emissions and goal emissions in terms of lbs per MWh rather than in just lbs. They want to focus on the part of the generating capacity which is currently fossil fuels, so they need to use fossil fuel generation as the denominator. (If they didn't do this, then states which are heavily nuclear, like IL at 50%, or hydro like Washington, would have to eliminate a much higher % of their fossil fuels to see comparable declines in their carbon intensity, lbs/MWh.)

Correct, but they are not just tightly ring-fencing coal and natural gas. The renewables, apart from hydro are part of this mix, to encourage rotation into them. So, going to wind or solar panels is ok, but not nuclear, since the vast majority (94%) of its MWh are deducted from the rate-based denominator. I followed up on page 41, of 645, and note EPA intends to keep control of the "state specific rate-based goal set by the EPA". So, not sure state plans even get the option of adding nuclear back. Comments are the only means, it seems.

Give yourself some credit. There are lots of industry folks who probably don't even use word-search much, let alone opening up this kind of document.

Second, they keep 6% of the nuclear fleet in the denominator because this is the percent of the nuclear fleet that they estimate may be retired. They estimate that keeping these plants going is actually a relatively cheap way to meet the emissions goals, so they keep that 6% in the denominator of the baseline case.

Yes, they say all kinds of pleasant things, but in the end, do you agree they took 94% out? EIA has TWH data, for reference. It's pretty easy to tell EPA's TWH values are very short.

Third, I read the section on the 5 new nuclear plants under construction on page 215 as saying that the EPA is counting on these plants coming on-line when they set the emissions goals for these states. The EPA counts the cost of the carbon mitigation from these plants at 0 because the EPA says the plants were started before the new rules, but that aside, I still read the EPA is saying that they expect (and want) these plants to be finished and are indeed counting on the emissions reductions from these plants when setting their goals.

Yes, but what matters is the essential conclusion of whether a plant closed, or built, after these increases, or reductions, will materially affect CO2 under the calculation. I think despite the kind words, the rule reads like "nominal/no-effect". The kind accommodation of specific closures/new plants, I think, obfuscates this conclusion.

The concern here, is carbon dioxide. If you are the Carolina's, not looking at wind, finding the $2 solar costs these other guys are using (presumably w/o land costs) too expensive, not able to tap hydro, etc., you actually have an incentive to stay within the calculation fence, and use natural gas. So long as you have some coal, its bound to help and would come at cheapest cost. But it increases CO2.

Lines were drawn deep in the nuclear / environmental debate long ago. The staffs of those drawing policy like this have old axes to grind. Young ones don't want new enemies. In the analysis above, the 3.2 trillion for solar, again without paying for 5,000 square miles of land, could be beat by the 2.3 trillion that scaling up the 15bb/2.2GW GA plants would yield. I'm not here to say nuclear is safe, but it is a debate over the extra decade, or so, we could buy before reaching whatever the 1,000Gt target might do. The conclusions on that figure are fluid, but things like water vapor feedbacks, etc. need more time before we know what wrenches they will throw us.

 

[nwdiver]

You can't view a transition to solar as an "overnight" thing... just like with building 150+ AP1000 reactors it would take decades... But nuclear and solar don't play nice; A nuclear plant is capital intensive and it's operating costs are mostly fixed, the 20 year cost of an AP1000 is about the same wether its capacity factor over that period is 90 or 10. To not be a complete waste of money a new nuclear plant REALLY needs to be on-line 90% of the time over >20 years. That's going to be impossible if Solar PV continues to grow as it has.

Solar PV is like a rising tide... at its projected cost point its hard not to see distributed generation overtaking everything. $2/w is today... $1/w in 2020... the primary ingredients in a solar panel, Si and Al are literally the most common materials on the planet so there aren't a lot of resource bottlenecks. Might as well back the winning side now...

Are there problems with solar PV? Of course, but we have a few years before we need to solve them. We currently generate 0.41% of electricity from solar. At ~16% we'll need a robust demand response program EVs can help with that. There does't appear to be a lot of information on how much can be generated with Solar PV before storage is NEEDED but its >20%...

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/12/sunday-solar-sunday-germany-solar-power-record-in-depth/

 

[CalDreamin]

We currently generate 0.41% of electricity from solar. At ~16% we'll need a robust demand response program EVs can help with that. There does't appear to be a lot of information on how much can be generated with Solar PV before storage is NEEDED but its >20%...

I suspect that the US generates more than 0.41% of its electricity from solar.

Yesterday, California generated 6.2% of system demand from grid-tied solar. If we also include the >2.2 GW of installed distributed solar PV in California, solar supplied about 9% of California's total system demand yesterday. Since most of the projects planned to move California from 20% RPS renewable power generation in 2013 to 33% by 2020 are solar, more than 16% of California's power will probably be from solar within a few years.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I suspect that the US generates more than 0.41% of its electricity from solar.

Yesterday, California generated 6.2% of system demand from grid-tied solar. If we also include the >2.2 GW of installed distributed solar PV in California, solar supplied about 9% of California's total system demand yesterday. Since most of the projects planned to move California from 20% RPS renewable power generation in 2013 to 33% by 2020 are solar, more than 16% of California's power will probably be from solar within a few years.

According to the latest data from the EIA, solar PV generated 9,655 GWh from Apr13 to Mar14, and solar thermal, 1,119 GWh, for a total of 10,774 GWh. All renewable sources (including solar) were 526,768 GWh, of which conventional hydro was 51% and wind was 33%. Total generation in the US for that period was 4,107,259 GWh: 40% coal, 27% nat gas, 19% nuclear, 6% hydro, 6% other renewable. Solar's overall contribution was 10,774/4,107,259 = 0.2%.

There's a flaw in this data, though, that results in systematic under-reporting of the contribution of solar: the data come from form EIA-923, which does NOT include distributed generation (PV, wind, fuel cells, etc.). I haven't dug deeply enough into the draft reg to see how this data gap is addressed, but it strikes me as a serious issue. It would be bizarre for a state to receive no credit from a program that greatly increases distributed solar. If the EPA regs measured total CO2 emissions, rather than CO2/MWh, they wouldn't have this issue.

Since this is an EV forum: isn't it bizarre that this reg has the unintended side effect of penalizing states for having EVs? It's been well established in the US that EVs have a lower carbon footprint than a comparable ICE vehicle. The carbon emissions from ICE vehicles aren't covered by the EPA reg (because it's not covered by existing statutory authority, I believe), so any shift from ICE to EV increases measured emissions (from the power sector). It also almost surely increases the average emissions rate, because most zero-carbon energy sources are dispatched first; incremental power comes from fossil sources. I think that this is a fairly serious flaw in the regs, and I'm considering submitting comments on this specific point.

(BTW, comments on regs are most effective if they pinpoint a particular problem in the reg and offer one or more fixes. There's really very little point in submitting comments that say, in effect, "good job" or "this is going to kill the economy".)

- - - Updated - - -

Most importantly, you didn't address the fundamental point - most people/consumers don't care about sea level because their houses aren't floating away yet. In fact, some states might be happy that they're going to become oceanfront property. But I guarantee when these new regulations cause consumers' power prices to increase by 50%+ that the greater majority won't care what 97% of those scientists think.

What is the basis for your assertion that this regulation would increase "consumers' power prices ... by 50%+"? The EPA's cost estimates (Table ES-4) place the annual cost in 2020 at $5.2 to $7.2 billion; by contrast, Americans spend approximately $450 billion on power costs (a number I derive by multiplying the 4,107 TWh of annual power consumption by $0.11/kWh; if you don't like my number, use one of your own). Thus, it looks like the cost impact will be approximately 1% to 2%, or roughly the cost of a coffee or two.

By focusing on the cost on the power bill, you omit any consideration of benefits elsewhere to a family's budget. The EPA's quantified and monetized benefits are, in the worst-case scenario, show that the monetary value of the benefits far outweighs the monetary cost (see Table ES-8). Even if you completely eliminate the "climate benefits" and look just at the health care cost reductions, the benefits more than cover the costs (see Table ES-6).

So, from the pocket-book perspective, this regulation reduces total household costs: pay a little more for power, pay less for health care. The positive impact on the environment comes, as it were, for free. America showing leadership on a global issue of paramount importance also comes for free.

 

[dhrivnak]

The New York times had a nice article on the new regulations and how 10 state already exceed the regulation, most states that exceeded the regulation from 2005 - 2012 saw their electric bills drop. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/07/science/in-some-states-emissions-cuts-defy-skeptics.html?emc=edit_th_20140607&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=6276833&_r=0&referrer

Also the comments about distributed power not being counted is likely true. About half of the solar power I generate offsets current usage in that my total generation is about 2X what I "sell" back. The electric company only knows how much I purchase and how much I sell back but if I use locally it is not captured in their numbers.

 

[David_Cary]

All these cost estimates are just really really rough.

The EPA is of course trying to sell this plan so their estimates are completely suspect. As has been stated, this reg is a NG bet. Now throw all the LNG plants/distribution in the mix and by 2020, we could easily be paying double 2014 prices for NG. When Japans already pays something like 4 times what we do for NG and Europe pays double, once we can export it, we will.

Someone explain to me how that lowers my electric bill.

Conservation is a no brainer. The best way to do that reliably is raise rates. So lowering electric bills is really the wrong answer.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Hope I don't trigger a class warfare debate with this but, isn't it appropriate for high energy-consuming (thereby affluent?) households to take up more of the burden in terms of any increased tariffs? Or, there be a financial hardship adjustment for poorer households? It's bad enough that a gallon of milk typically costs almost half the minimum hourly wage but, passing on a uniform electricity tariff hike to everyone isn't fair IMO. This is sort of a microcosm of the debate over country-level responsibility for emissions reductions based on affluence and stage of economic development.

 

[Robert.Boston]

The New York times had a nice article on the new regulations and how 10 state already exceed the regulation, most states that exceeded the regulation from 2005 - 2012 saw their electric bills drop.

Yes, but these states also rely heavily on nat gas for their power, and nat gas prices plummeted between 2005-2012. I disagree with any causal link between carbon regulation and lower energy prices, at least in this particular case.

 

[nwdiver]

I disagree with any causal link between carbon regulation and lower energy prices, at least in this particular case.

Short-term (<10 years) costs will rise
Long-term (>10 years) costs will drop... (>20 years) I honestly expect electricity will be free (~9am-4pm during the summer)

 

[Robert.Boston]

All these cost estimates are just really really rough.

The EPA is of course trying to sell this plan so their estimates are completely suspect. As has been stated, this reg is a NG bet. Now throw all the LNG plants/distribution in the mix and by 2020, we could easily be paying double 2014 prices for NG. When Japans already pays something like 4 times what we do for NG and Europe pays double, once we can export it, we will.

Someone explain to me how that lowers my electric bill.

Conservation is a no brainer. The best way to do that reliably is raise rates. So lowering electric bills is really the wrong answer.

The electricity bills aren't "being lowered," although it might be the case that widespread adoption of energy efficiency program, etc. prices will drop. A lot of conservation isn't a reaction to raising prices (unlike, say, the normal demand reduction in commodities like strawberries in reaction to an increase in price), but rather by a decision by a consumer to alter how they use power. Shifting from incandescent lighting to LEDs systematically shifts energy use going forward, as does replacing aged appliances, insulating homes, etc. Here, subsidies/supports to encourage these energy efficient purchases can make an enduring impact on energy usage and, therefore, carbon emissions.

- - - Updated - - -

Short-term (<10 years) costs will rise
Long-term (>10 years) costs will drop... (>20 years) I honestly expect electricity will be free (~9am-4pm during the summer)

I can only see energy being "free" in the same sense that my going to the gym is "free:" I've paid my monthly membership fee, and I can go as often in the month as I choose. Someone's going to have to pay the capital charges for the generation.

 

[nwdiver]

- - - Updated - - -


I can only see energy being "free" in the same sense that my going to the gym is "free:" I've paid my monthly membership fee, and I can go as often in the month as I choose. Someone's going to have to pay the capital charges for the generation.

Undoubtedly there will always be a basic connection fee but when a majority of our energy is sourced from wind and solar it is very likely that during certain hours of the day there will be a significant amount of energy being curtailed. This has already occurred in Texas with wind power... TXU was giving away off-peak energy since if that power wasn't used the wind turbines were curtailed.

What we DESPERATELY need is less talk/debate and more ACTION... well, gotta go... more solar modules to rack :biggrin: