Green New Deal

[rays427]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right. A 70% tax on the rich makes sense
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right. A 70% tax on the rich makes sense | Nathan Robinson

Stopping climate change is an investment, and so the question has to be “How are we going to do it?” rather than “Do we have the money to do it?” The National Review is correct that the left has to move beyond talking points and “actually lay out a specific, comprehensive proposal of spending and tax increases.” But critics of left proposals, too, need to be explaining how they think we can achieve the urgent goals put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Here’s the good news: even when conservatives are fuming about Ocasio-Cortez, they cannot stop talking about her ideas. The “Green New Deal” climate change plan has gone from marginal to mainstream almost overnight. Now, Fox is hosting entire panel discussions to debate her policies, and they often end up using their own information channel to make left ideas look appealing. They are frustrated in part because the more they denounce “socialist” ideas, they more popular the ideas become.

If you live in California the top rate is already 50%. From what I could find on the internet Sweden top rate is actually 61.85%. In Sweden and the rest of the Scandinavian countries their taxes are much flatter than in the US. So lower income folks pay much higher taxes than those in the US. In addition there is a 25 % VAT which certainly hits lower income folks much harder than our sales taxes. In addition I would expect most really wealthy folks earn more from Dividends and Capital Gains. Sweden's are at 30% and here they are 23.8% plus state taxes so in California they are 37.1% for the highest earners.

 

[juliusa]

Because SPS already has ~20% surplus capacity adding more capacity would be a nonstarter.

Yes, because of that silly thing called economics. It is cheaper to generate electricity with their existing investment in capital and fuel costs than to replace it with wind.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, because of that silly thing called economics. It is cheaper to generate electricity with their existing investment in capital and fuel costs than to replace it with wind.

???? Um no... it would cost ~$30/MWh to use their existing investment in capital because fuel costs and <$20/MWh to replace it with wind because fuel costs...

Adding wind to displace gas to generate electricity is cheaper that using existing gas turbines to generate electricity because fuel costs. If that wasn't true the NM PRC would have rejected SPSs proposal to build 1.2GW of wind.

Adding wind costs ~$19/MWh

The FUEL cost of natural gas for SPS is ~$30/MWh; The blended cost of coal & gas is ~$25/MWh

$19 < $30. Math.

$19 < $25. Math.

 

[juliusa]

Look at what they do, my friend, not the nonsense they say.

If they could install and deliver wind electricity at a lower cost per kW than the cost of NG fuel per kW generated, they would do it. In that scenario it would be cheaper to build wind and abandon their NG generation facilities.

I know you love your math, But the world operates on economics, not math.

 

[nwdiver]

Look at what they do, my friend, not the nonsense they say.

If they could install and deliver wind electricity at a lower cost per kW than the cost of NG fuel per kW generated, they would do it. In that scenario it would be cheaper to build wind and abandon their NG generation facilities.

I know you love your math, But the world operates on economics, not math.

??? They can and are. SPS was approved for and is building a 1.2GW wind farm on the basis that it's cheaper than gas.

Economics is Math my friend.

 

[juliusa]

SPS was approved for and is building a 1.2GW wind farm on the basis that it's cheaper than gas.

Not buying it. Why not 120GW then? 100x the savings.

This isn't in TX is it - where there is lots of wind, and they can't give away NG?

I see the math error now. NG is more like $1 per MMBtu, not the $4.60 they used in their math. In fairness, they probably did their analysis when NG had gone from $2 to $3, and expected it to continue - except it went the other way. Gonna suck for those ratepayers.

NGI Natural Gas Prices - Waha - Bidweek

Just like the solar panel ROI analysis the salesmen use - based on ridiculous electricity price escalation assumptions.

 

[nwdiver]

Not buying it. Why not 120GW then? 100x the savings.

LOL ..... you really have ZERO clue how the grid works....

same reason I can't install >15kWAC of solar on my house. If peak demand is 50GW where is the other 70GW going to go? Peak demand when wind peaks is usually much lower, tonight in SPP service territory it's ~25GW (and there's already ~14GW of wind in SPP with ~5 more in the pipe)

And the cost of Natural gas at a hub in West Texas is not the price SPS pays to burn it in a gas turbine. Just like the wholesale price of gas is not what you pay at the local gas station.

The FPPCAC is ~$25/MWh. The LCOE of the wind farms is ~$19/MWh. Which part of reality don't you buy?

Further, SPS will refund the FPPCAC for every MWh generated from their wind farms to rate payers... so the only way for them to make money is if the energy generated by the wind farms is cheaper than the cost of fuel.

 

[juliusa]

Further, SPS will refund the FPPCAC for every MWh generated from their wind farms to rate payers... so the only way for them to make money is if the energy generated by the wind farms is cheaper than the cost of fuel.

They ain't makin no money on that deal then.

 

[nwdiver]

They ain't makin no money on that deal then.

LOL... so why are they doing it? They sure seem to think so. PRC Staff thinks so. Vestas thinks so. Their economists think so. Math thinks so. So.... everyone is wrong and you're right??? LOL

If you're buying energy for ~$19/MWh and selling it for $25/MWh... that's a nice profit. Math.

Hang on.... $25 - $19....

Yep... it checks out... they're gonna be making some $$$.

 

[juliusa]

LOL... so why are they doing it? They sure seem to think so.

NG prices were rising when they did their analysis, and are now half what they were.

 

[nwdiver]

NG prices were rising when they did their analysis, and are now half what they were.

Yes... because it only goes down and not up....

 

[SageBrush]

 

[nwdiver]

View attachment 367424

PRC analysis of SPSs request calculated that the wind farms essentially lock-in a cost of $2.40/MMBtu over ~25+ years. Seems like a pretty good deal

And that's not an average. That's 'best-case'. peaking plants are less efficient and can use ~2x as much gas per MWh generated.

 

[juliusa]

Time will tell if they come out ahead on the deal. All depends on the price on NG and if they get the project done in 2019 to get their federal subsidies.

Part of the cost of wind is having backup generation for when the wind is not blowing - NG is the interim, just like hybrid cars. The real solution will be some type of storage, and that is where the money for backup will go eventually. For now, it is NG generation because it is so cheap.

 

[juliusa]

PRC analysis of SPSs request calculated that the wind farms essentially lock-in a cost of $2.40/MMBtu over ~25+ years.

I thought it was based on $4.90. So installing wind is half the cost of NG fuel?? Their calculations didn't seem to reflect that. Showed it is about 5% savings over the fuel cost at $4.90.

 

[nwdiver]

I thought it was based on $4.90.

View attachment 367430

It is. $2.40/MMBtu is the calculated 'break-even' cost where the most efficient combined cycle natural gas plants can produce electricity as cost effectively as wind.

The cost of energy from the wind farms is equivalent to the cost of gas being $2.40/MMBtu.

 

[juliusa]

Perhaps I have forgotten what we are disagreeing about.

Wind has an ROI. No question about it. A lot being installed.

Wind generation is increasing in the US.
NG consumption (not only generation capacity) is increasing in the US.
Coal consumption (and generation capacity) is decreasing in the US.

So is wind energy replacing NG or coal? I say coal. If CA adds more wind (and solar), I believe NG will continue to increase and coal will continue to decrease.

Put another way, the US energy mix is shifting from coal to NG and renewables.

And the less coal we burn, the more we can ship to India and South Korea so they can burn it.

 

[SageBrush]

Per the EIA there are lower hanging NG plants to pick off than 7,000 btu/kWh:

In 2015, natural gas-fired combined-cycle technology operated at an average heat rate of 7,340 Btu/kWh. In contrast, simple-cycle natural gas-fired generators, which encompass several distinct technology types (gas turbines, internal combustion engines, and steam turbines), operated at a consumption-weighted average heat rate of 9,788 Btu/kWh.

 

[nwdiver]

Perhaps I have forgotten what we are disagreeing about.

Wind has an ROI. No question about it. A lot being installed.

Wind generation is increasing in the US.
NG consumption (not only generation capacity) is increasing in the US.
Coal consumption (and generation capacity) is decreasing in the US.

So is wind energy replacing NG or coal? I say coal.

We're disagreeing about reality.....

You can't isolate one aspect and ignore the other parts of the whole. Wind AND Gas are displacing coal. You can't displace coal with wind because wind isn't consistent enough. You can't buffer wind with coal because coal isn't flexible enough. Wind is cheaper than gas so you add wind to save fuel. Gas has the low cost (per kW) and flexibility to match the intermittency of wind.

Per the EIA there are lower hanging NG plants to pick off than 7,000 btu/kWh:

I think PRC staff were just using that as a 'best-case' example.

 

[SageBrush]

So is wind energy replacing NG or coal? I say coal. If CA adds more wind (and solar), I believe NG will continue to increase and coal will continue to decrease.

Coal goes away regardless.
NG replacement by wind is difficult due to dispatch-ability. And it will be (in my opinion) quite tricky to avoid some degree of the Australia experience wherein relatively small amounts of NG are expensive on the spot market during gaps in PV/wind generation.