Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[nwdiver]

APS claims 50% RPS will result in closure of Palo Verde in ~6 years.

This is a prime example that for us to make significant progress toward decorbonization that paradoxically nuclear needs to die. Energy generation cannot be viewed simply as ~XXTWh/yr it also needs to also be viewed as MW on an hourly basis. If ~20% of your annual energy is from solar that means that for 1-2 hours per day ~100% is from solar which means it's nuclear or solar for those hours. If you want ~80% from wind and solar you cannot have ~20% coming from nuclear. That's not economically feasible. It's simply not cost-effective for nuclear to exist on the grid once solar and wind pass the ~50% point.

Nuclear is only ~36% of APS generation. Even at that level one of the most profitable nuclear plants cannot survive the amount of curtailment it would experience if wind and solar are ~50%. The unfortunate reality is that this is going to be a 2 steps forward, one step back progression.

 

[SageBrush]

APS claims 50% RPS will result in closure of Palo Verde in ~6 years.

This is a prime example that for us to make significant progress toward decorbonization that paradoxically nuclear needs to die. Energy generation cannot be viewed simply as ~XXTWh/yr it also needs to also be viewed as MW on an hourly basis. If ~20% of your annual energy is from solar that means that for 1-2 hours per day ~100% is from solar which means it's nuclear or solar for those hours. If you want ~80% from wind and solar you cannot have ~20% coming from nuclear. That's not economically feasible. It's simply not cost-effective for nuclear to exist on the grid once solar and wind pass the ~50% point.

Nuclear is only ~36% of APS generation. Even at that level one of the most profitable nuclear plants cannot survive the amount of curtailment it would experience if wind and solar are ~50%. The unfortunate reality is that this is going to be a 2 steps forward, one step back progression.

This is true in general; specifics will be dictated by specifics. E.g. if the Palo Verde plant is integrated into a wider distribution grid it will have a longer life.

 

[nwdiver]

This is true in general; specifics will be dictated by specifics. E.g. if the Palo Verde plant is integrated into a wider distribution grid it will have a longer life.

More robust transmission lines are likely to make the plight of inflexible base load generators worse. Surplus wind from SPP will be free to lower market prices in Arizona at night while surplus solar from CAISO would lower market prices during the day.

There's some irony in the fact that almost everything that could save nuclear is even more likely to kill it.

 

[Brando]

@SageBrush
@nwdiver

-4% drop in geothermal? how is that possible? equipment problems? water supply problem?
-11% drop in wind. Am I right to think added storage to wind resources is called for?? Wind is off lined cause of solar production?

side note: coal fired plant at Salt River project, AZ extended until 2019 - keeps Navajo coal miners working.
Seems this would make a fine solar project. Water, hydro power, Navajo, coal mine, Grand Canyon - seems it gets complicated.

Coal miners fight to keep Navajo plant open; SRP says only a 'unicorn' can save it
Lease for Navajo Coal Plant Receives Final Approval

 

[Pollux]

Hi, @ 3mp_kwh,

Thoughts on how to get to that common ground?

What parts of the political spectrum that don't recognize the urgency of AGW would still be interested in a carbon fee/dividend and/or tax? Tough even to align the freaking enviros on carbon fee!

I ask seriously.

Thanks,
Alan

For different reasons, much of the political spectrum wants the same thing (yes, some don't), but this is sort of how the $7,500 battery tax-credit passed. They weren't screaming "CO2". They found common ground.

 

[3mp_kwh]

RE: Common ground
Hi, @ 3mp_kwh,
What parts of the political spectrum that don't recognize the urgency of AGW would still be interested in a carbon fee/dividend and/or tax? Tough even to align the freaking enviros on carbon fee!

Hi Alan, (hope things are well) Conservatives tightly bundle coal and nuclear policy together. Their pushes, in acronym: NOPR (DOE), MOPR (FERC) and I suppose you could consider ISO NE's "casper", are all efforts to address "reliability", "resilience". There will be an economic consumer cost, if they succeed in this support. That same cost, for the sake of nuclear, could just as easily be an imputed carbon fee. That would be the practical effect, if something like the financial support for 90 days of on-site fuel storage (the basis of Rick Perry's NOPR) achieves some kind of economic benefit for the generators. It is separating such benefit (federal ZEC, or consumer fee, by proxy), from Trump's more intended coal benefit. However, that would get tricky with this Administration. I don't think nuclear befriended him, as coal (Murray) did, but cleaving the two electricity sources apart could go bi-partisan and serve (perceptions of) reliability & CO2 mitigation at the same time.

An example of equivalence: NY's ZEC payments support nukes, from $17/MWh, on up. In so far as natural gas is not dispatched, its ~1,000lb CO2/MWh consequence effectively will have suffered under a ~$34 per ton CO2 fee. There is no rebate, or dividend, because the lower emitting CO2 source needs those funds to be competitive. Sort of like wind has been getting $22 from the Production Tax Credit, but more controversial.

I don't see fee & rebate having as easy a time, federally. Just my guess, but you'd have to add the same reasons things failed in WA state, to others from states with much higher emissions (and more intense special interests).

 

[nwdiver]

Thoughts on how to get to that common ground?

There's simply a misunderstanding. There are people that think that if Palo Verde is supplying 36% and renewables are currently ~20% that you can make a 50% RPS mandate and you'll be at ~86% clean energy. That's simply not true. Solar will increasingly jostle with nuclear for demand during the day while wind increasing pushes out nuclear at night. I agree with subsiding existing nuclear to a point but eventually it's just more cost effective to shut down the plant and use the savings to build more wind, solar and storage. Economics matters.

A carbon tax is just as likely to make life harder for nuclear as it is to save it. One of the reasons Illinois had to step in to save a few of it's nuclear plants from closure was wind. A carbon tax means more wind too. More wind means less nuclear. Wind has just become so incredibly cheap. NM is building a 1GW wind farm for $1.6B. It's expected to produce electricity for <$0.03/kWh.

It simply won't make any sense to spend ~$1B/yr on O&M for a nuclear plant that's only used when it's not sunny or windy... when we get to that point spending $1B/yr on more wind, solar and storage would be far more cost effective.

 

[nwdiver]

SMRs were discussed on 'Got Science?' this week. I'm still a little confused as to how NuScale sees this boondoggle playing out. There's no 'win scenario'.

Problem: Nuclear is too expensive.

Solution: Make it smaller => more $/w

......?

 

[mspohr]

Shift to renewables would save Australians $20bn a year – report
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[SageBrush]

Shift to renewables would save Australians $20bn a year – report
Shift to renewables would save Australians $20bn a year – report

I think they have to reform their market to prevent price gouging when periodic supply drops occur.
The simplest solution that occurs to me is to have the government own gas plants and supplies that are called upon during shortages. They still have to charge enough to give a conservation signal to the public but not allow the current craziness of $1 a kWh

 

[mspohr]

Looks like the "golden age of natural gas" is a bust.
GE's gas turbine business is on the ropes and now Siemens.

“I think that the whole industry has significantly been underestimating the rise of renewable energy,” said Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser in a March interview with The Wall Street Journal.

The global gas power market actually lost 12 gigawatts of net capacity in 2017, as retiring plants outpaced new ones.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/siemens-may-sell-gas-turbine-business

IEA strikes out again.

 

[RubberToe]

Looks like the "golden age of natural gas" is a bust.
GE's gas turbine business is on the ropes and now Siemens.

“I think that the whole industry has significantly been underestimating the rise of renewable energy,” said Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser in a March interview with The Wall Street Journal.

The global gas power market actually lost 12 gigawatts of net capacity in 2017, as retiring plants outpaced new ones.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/siemens-may-sell-gas-turbine-business

IEA strikes out again.

So to ask the obvious question. If the global market for gas turbines is going to go down the drain, which company is going to be hit the hardest. Whats the purest play that can be shorted?

RT

 

[mspohr]

So to ask the obvious question. If the global market for gas turbines is going to go down the drain, which company is going to be hit the hardest. Whats the purest play that can be shorted?

RT

GE is already in the tank so not much short potential there.
Don't know the industry well enough to speculate.

 

[nwdiver]

So to ask the obvious question. If the global market for gas turbines is going to go down the drain, which company is going to be hit the hardest. Whats the purest play that can be shorted?

RT

Short the funds that are short TSLA

OR... just be long TSLA

 

[SageBrush]

So to ask the obvious question. If the global market for gas turbines is going to go down the drain, which company is going to be hit the hardest. Whats the purest play that can be shorted?

RT

Natural Gas ?

Be careful; NG still built 70 GW of power last year in the US alone. I think they are in for a consolidation and correction of previously grande plans of expansion but that is not the same thing as a dwindling industry. In fact, I think they will ride the coat-tails of wind and PV for years.

 

[Brando]

Natural Gas as an alternative fuel - why didn't it ever seem to take hold?

In the 90s in Seattle we were going to NG for buses, did fancy tests - then some how when it came time to buy we ended up with diesel again? I don't know the inside story.

Some parts of the world cars are actually dual fuel (with computer controls it is easy) and drivers switch back and forth. Brazil dual fuel with petrol and alcohol (sugar cane makes for cheap alcohol). Now electric wins for operating costs, so seems too late for alternative fuels.

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Natural Gas Vehicles
May 17, 2018 - Natural gas powers more than 160,000 vehicles in the United States and roughly 15.2 million vehicles worldwide.

15 million NG and I think electrics are approaching 3-4 million?
NG mileage about the same as gas, and not much of a cost difference, right?

 

[lklundin]

The global gas power market actually lost 12 gigawatts of net capacity in 2017

With its absence of moving parts and reliance just on solid state physics advances, there is no doubt that solar power will play a significant role in our future electricity supply.

However, the above cited article makes a common mistake when it compares different sources of electricity production, including solar power.

Each kind of electricity production has its own Capacity Factor (Capacity factor - Wikipedia), i.e. the fraction of its actual production to its peak production over time.

Assuming demand for all power generated, a well-run nuclear power plant will over time produce about 90% of its name plate power. A well-placed wind turbine may over time produce 40% of its name plate power. Depending mostly on latitude, a solar power plant may over time produce for example 18% of its name plate power.

While the capacity factor does not in itself form an argument for or against any given source of electricity, it is not fair to compare the name plate power of fundamentally different sources of electricity.

An alternative is to compare the projected annual power production from each source, which is simply the name plate power multiplied by the capacity factor and the number of hours in the year. The relevant unit would then be e.g. GWh/year as opposed to GW.

With this in mind, the massive growth of solar power does not quite give it the significance that one would infer by simply comparing changes in the name plate capacity of different electricity sources.

Edit: For example, to replace a 1 GW gas power plant that has a capacity factor of 72 %, one would need 4 GW of solar power with a capacity factor of 18 % (along with certain solutions to ensure equal availability of the power). As one goes more into the details, the comparison gets more complicated. If the 1 GW gas power plant is replaced by residential solar (and e.g. batteries), then the transmission loss of the centralized production is avoided, meaning that closer to 3 GW as opposed to 4 GW would be needed.

 

[Brando]

With its absence of moving parts and reliance just on solid state physics advances, there is no doubt that solar power will play a significant role in our future electricity supply.

Each kind of electricity production has its own Capacity Factor (Capacity factor - Wikipedia), i.e. the fraction of its actual production to its peak production over time.

Edit: For example, to replace a 1 GW gas power plant that has a capacity factor of 72 %, one would need 4 GW of solar power with a capacity factor of 18 % (along with certain solutions to ensure equal availability of the power). As one goes more into the details, the comparison gets more complicated. If the 1 GW gas power plant is replaced by residential solar (and e.g. batteries), then the transmission loss of the centralized production is avoided, meaning that closer to 3 GW as opposed to 4 GW would be needed.

I'd suspect most of gas turbine market loss was probably "peaker plants" - right?
Batteries work faster/better and can be built quicker.

Replace NG with solar? Well, won't it be more accurate to say we buy the least expensive, shut down worn out plants.
The cheapest solar and wind - both are location dependent.
BPA.org [Bonneville Power Authority - NW US] mostly hydro [dams] is losing out to wind which is the cheapest in NorthWest.
In Arizona solar surely the least expensive. You get the idea.

 

[mspohr]

With its absence of moving parts and reliance just on solid state physics advances, there is no doubt that solar power will play a significant role in our future electricity supply.

However, the above cited article makes a common mistake when it compares different sources of electricity production, including solar power.

Each kind of electricity production has its own Capacity Factor (Capacity factor - Wikipedia), i.e. the fraction of its actual production to its peak production over time.

Assuming demand for all power generated, a well-run nuclear power plant will over time produce about 90% of its name plate power. A well-placed wind turbine may over time produce 40% of its name plate power. Depending mostly on latitude, a solar power plant may over time produce for example 18% of its name plate power.

While the capacity factor does not in itself form an argument for or against any given source of electricity, it is not fair to compare the name plate power of fundamentally different sources of electricity.

An alternative is to compare the projected annual power production from each source, which is simply the name plate power multiplied by the capacity factor and the number of hours in the year. The relevant unit would then be e.g. GWh/year as opposed to GW.

With this in mind, the massive growth of solar power does not quite give it the significance that one would infer by simply comparing changes in the name plate capacity of different electricity sources.

Edit: For example, to replace a 1 GW gas power plant that has a capacity factor of 72 %, one would need 4 GW of solar power with a capacity factor of 18 % (along with certain solutions to ensure equal availability of the power). As one goes more into the details, the comparison gets more complicated. If the 1 GW gas power plant is replaced by residential solar (and e.g. batteries), then the transmission loss of the centralized production is avoided, meaning that closer to 3 GW as opposed to 4 GW would be needed.

Capacity factor is important to consider but a high CF is not necessarily good. Electric demand varies a lot during the day and a high CF means you have too much power at night and you have to give it away cheaply. Flexible power such as batteries is more valuable.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Assuming demand for all power generated, a well-run nuclear power plant will over time produce about 90% of its name plate power. A well-placed wind turbine may over time produce 40% of its name plate power. Depending mostly on latitude, a solar power plant may over time produce for example 18% of its name plate power.

Capacity factors for well placed wind are now topping 60-65% over certain periods of time, and the new normal seems to be closer to 50% in good locations offshore.

Solar is closer to 30% in the US and higher in regions with greater average potential.

The upward trend in US averages by month is quite stark and encouraging....

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b