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

[lklundin]

Your point is spot on. I didn't consider maintenance or repairs either, so calling it 'production cost' is inaccurate. Is there a better term to describe lifetime generation divided by installation cost ?

I like that calculation for it's simplicity and for trending.

Do you know if the local communities benefit from these hydro and wind plants, and how much ?

Well, the press release talks about construction jobs in the area and some jobs for the ongoing (for decades it says) operations and maintenance (although that will probably not be many, the farms will e.g. be on-shore). The president of Vestas Northern Europe talks about a 20+ years maintenance contract.
Electricity prices are already very low and the grid stability is already excellent, so nothing special there.

What is maybe more interesting is that I can find no indication that there are any subsidies involved. About half of the investment is from normal European capitalists. The consortium behind the wind farms have entered into a 20-year contract with Norsk Hydro, to annually deliver up to 1TWh electricity (for aluminium production), giving the investors a sufficiently low risk. As far as I can understand this contract is there in place of the hitherto normal state-guaranteed contract to buy the electricity at a given minimum price for some years.

That is a pretty big deal.

 

[SageBrush]

Well, the press release talks about construction jobs in the area and some jobs for the ongoing (for decades it says) operations and maintenance (although that will probably not be many, the farms will e.g. be on-shore). The president of Vestas Northern Europe talks about a 20+ years maintenance contract.
Electricity prices are already very low and the grid stability is already excellent, so nothing special there.

What is maybe more interesting is that I can find no indication that there are any subsidies involved. About half of the investment is from normal European capitalists. The consortium behind the wind farms have entered into a 20-year contract with Norsk Hydro, to annually deliver up to 1TWh electricity (for aluminium production), giving the investors a sufficiently low risk. As far as I can understand this contract is there in place of the hitherto normal state-guaranteed contract to buy the electricity at a given minimum price for some years.

That is a pretty big deal.

Who owns the land ?

 

[lklundin]

Who owns the land ?

Don't know. I googled a couple of the places, they return hits only related to wind power and on google maps they show just bare rock near the ocean (which is good for the capacity factor). So any expropriation or land lease cost would likely be limited.

 

[adiggs]

Glad to hear another coal plant is closing, but what is the real story behind FPL's actions ? It sure ain't environmental activism. To be blunt, it is money -- but how ?

My reading of the article is that it gets FP&L out of an expensive contract to buy electricity from the plant at a guaranteed rate and guaranteed minimum volume, that are together far more expensive than they can get power from other sources. They either send the payments for the next 9 years (or whatever the remainder of that contract is), or they buy the legal entity, and then voluntarily end the contract.

Of course, the follow through is nobody else wants the power at the necessary price to make it profitable, so it's cheaper for FP&L to shut down the plant than it is to continue operating it.

 

[lklundin]

Of course, the follow through is nobody else wants the power at the necessary price to make it profitable, so it's cheaper for FP&L to shut down the plant than it is to continue operating it.

Unlike the turbines of fossile power plants wind turbines, solar panels and HVDC-to-AC converters provide no grid-stabilisation.
So in Denmark, some of the fossile power plants are actually kept going in idle (with very little fuel consumption), with the heavy turbines providing useful grid-stabilisation. So a few fossile power plants still play a small role in getting the wind turbine share to 50% of that country's electricity production.

 

[rolosrevenge]

So my main comment on the title of this thread is that oil and nuclear are very different energy sources in what they serve. Oil is primarily transport fuel and nuclear is primarily grid. I would like to see nuclear only go under only after natural gas has since it's a carbon neutral source and oil go first.

 

[lklundin]

So my main comment on the title of this thread is that oil and nuclear are very different energy sources in what they serve. Oil is primarily transport fuel and nuclear is primarily grid. I would like to see nuclear only go under only after natural gas has since it's a carbon neutral source and oil go first.

The cost of opening a new nuclear power plant is prohibitively expensive compared to power from its its alternatives. So unless a government somewhere decides to build one to also secure a supply a fissile weapons material, I think we will see very few if new commissionings.

Who here can for example argue that Hinkley Point C will ever deliver power to the grid?

The cost of keeping an already operational nuclear power plant running is naturally much lower, especially if the government cannot manage to establish an alternative supply, forcing it to relax its maintenance requirements on the plant.

The current Swedish and Finnish nuclear reactors have no problem competing in the open Nord Pool Spot market, but the Finnish are having an awful lot of trouble getting their planned nuclear power plants constructed, and the Swedes have no new plants planned.

So nuclear will likely disappear only as each of the existing plants reach their EOL and are decommissioned.

 

[nwdiver]

I would like to see nuclear only go under only after natural gas has since it's a carbon neutral source and oil go first.

That's almost impossible. If we have a few TWh we need in the winter and a few other GWh deficits scattered throughout the year do you really think nuclear power is the best answer? Nat Gas Turbines are purpose built for that. I fully expect our natural gas plants to out live our nuclear plants by decades.

You can turn off a Natural Gas plant in September and walk away until you need it in January... can't do that with a nuclear plant. At some point we might not need them for a few years.... just keep them operational in case we do... another thing you can't do with a nuclear plant.

 

[rolosrevenge]

I agree, but I'm just thinking about it in terms of desirability.

 

[adiggs]

Unlike the turbines of fossile power plants wind turbines, solar panels and HVDC-to-AC converters provide no grid-stabilisation.
So in Denmark, some of the fossile power plants are actually kept going in idle (with very little fuel consumption), with the heavy turbines providing useful grid-stabilisation. So a few fossile power plants still play a small role in getting the wind turbine share to 50% of that country's electricity production.

Your observation about a few fossil fuel plants hanging around to provide grid stabilization for awhile is, I fully expect, spot on. The challenge arises in which specific plants, with what contracts, will be the ones to hang around? The way I read this FP&L situation, the general case is probably true, and FP&L doesn't need this specific plant with its specific contract to be that resource.

I expect that as the situation evolves, it'll be more and more of this type of shutdown of coal, with nat gas plants providing the standby and grid stabilization functionality. Of course - somewhere out there, natural gas may switch from being a ubiquitous and sometimes valueless waste product, and turn into a rare and difficult to procure commodity. It's a dynamic and evolving situation (and I look forward to the day where nat gas starts being difficult to procure, thereby making nat gas electricity generation problematic - that's a big change in the overall grid and fuel mix to get there).

 

[Topher]

and I look forward to the day where nat gas starts being difficult to procure,

It is already dangerous to procure. But the people paying that cost are not the people getting the benefit, so it is unlikely to change.

Thank you kindly.

 

[rays427]

Good luck heating your home if natural gas gets difficult to procure. Natural gas or something else will be needed for a long time. The combination of wind and solar puts our a lot less during the winter. As of now solar works great since electric use is highest in the summer because of air conditioning when solar output peaks. However if you replace natural gas and oil heating with electric heating your requirement for electricity will probably end up higher in the winter when the solar is at it's lowest output. In addition someone will have to pay for storage to cover night time usage.

I live in Northern California and my monthly average highest solar output has been 58 Kwh per day in June and the lowest has been 7.5 Kwh per day in December. My highest daily has been 63 Kwh and the lowest has been 1 Kwh. My highest electric use is currently in the winter even though I have 2 propane furnaces, 1 propane water heater, one electric water heater, propane stove, propane fireplace and propane dryer. If I converted everything to electric my use and cost would skyrocket. I assume that would be the case for most folks especially those in the northern states.

 

[nwdiver]

The combination of wind and solar puts our a lot less during the winter.

Wind generation is usually >30% higher in the winter. Another reason it compliments solar very well. Heat pumps can mitigate electric consumption. Resistance electric heating is absurdly inefficient.

 

[Dave EV]

Unlike the turbines of fossile power plants wind turbines, solar panels and HVDC-to-AC converters provide no grid-stabilisation.

This is simply not true. While not all DC/AC inverters can provide grid stabilization, it is quickly becoming a standard feature. SMA, for example has been building solar inverters with this capability for quite a while.

Overview of the grid management functions of SMA inverters

 

[lklundin]

This is simply not true. While not all DC/AC inverters can provide grid stabilization, it is quickly becoming a standard feature. SMA, for example has been building solar inverters with this capability for quite a while.

Overview of the grid management functions of SMA inverters

It would probably be more fair to say that this is becoming less true.

In 2014 and again in 2015 Denmark used idling turbines to set the world record for the highest annual wind+solar fraction in the electricity production. Relying on self-regulation in the inverters was not enough to achieve that.

A few years ago predictions were common that the grid could sustain up to say 10% wind+solar, whereas it is has now passed 50% for a (small) country - and not just during a single day, but on an annual basis.

The introduction of smart (i.e. self-regulating) grid-components is a valuable improvement that surely will be needed to bring the solar+wind fraction even higher. That and investments in the grid itself, so (the predictable) variations in solar+wind can be smoothed out over large geographical areas.

 

[Topher]

Wind generation is usually >30% higher in the winter. Another reason it compliments solar very well. Heat pumps can mitigate electric consumption. Resistance electric heating is absurdly inefficient.

With the caveat that electrical resistance heating is near 100% efficient, and thus more efficient than any fossil fuel system, yes. Heat pumps are more like 300-400% efficient (through not counting (or paying for) all the energy involved).

In my area, the normalized costs are as follows (in $ per MBTUs):
Oil - $22.71
Propane - $45.47
Natural Gas - $17.67
Resistance Electric - $43.75
Wood Pellets - $18.67
Heat Pump - $12.25
Solar PV Heat Pump - $7.62

However if you replace natural gas and oil heating with electric heating your requirement for electricity will probably end up higher in the winter when the solar is at it's lowest output. In addition someone will have to pay for storage to cover night time usage.

I don't use any natural gas now, as it is unavailable in my area. I heat partially with solar. In fact, my storage system is currently filling up to take me through the winter. It is a thermal storage system, which means it uses 60% efficient thermal solar collectors, rather than 15% efficient photovoltaics.

The seasonal storage issue is one of the remaining problems with a all-renewable national energy system. The criteria are such that long-term (i.e. 6 months) storage of energy requires extremely low costs per kWh. The leading contenders are mineral based thermal storage; hydrogen; and (ironically) methane. These would all be created with renewable energy in summer, not extracted.

Quite frankly, if you need night time storage for heating, your house needs insulation and air sealing. A properly built house shouldn't need heat overnight, in all but the coldest climates.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

Good luck heating your home if natural gas gets difficult to procure. Natural gas or something else will be needed for a long time. The combination of wind and solar puts our a lot less during the winter. As of now solar works great since electric use is highest in the summer because of air conditioning when solar output peaks. However if you replace natural gas and oil heating with electric heating your requirement for electricity will probably end up higher in the winter when the solar is at it's lowest output. In addition someone will have to pay for storage to cover night time usage.

I live in Northern California and my monthly average highest solar output has been 58 Kwh per day in June and the lowest has been 7.5 Kwh per day in December. My highest daily has been 63 Kwh and the lowest has been 1 Kwh. My highest electric use is currently in the winter even though I have 2 propane furnaces, 1 propane water heater, one electric water heater, propane stove, propane fireplace and propane dryer. If I converted everything to electric my use and cost would skyrocket. I assume that would be the case for most folks especially those in the northern states.

The Smart (tm) solution to home heating and cooling is a better built home and smart use of windows.
E.g., I currently live in a rental home in Colorado (~ 5000 HDD a year) built ~ 25 years ago. The insulation is sub-standard and the windows leak but the home was built with a lot of windows and faces south. During these summer months daytime outside peak temperatures are usually 90-100F but the home peaks at about 78F by late afternoon and is then cooled at night-time down to 65-68F through natural ventilation. No AC use.

Our only heating sources in the winter are sunlight and NG, and the latter could be dispensed with or severely reduced if we had good insulation and a heat pump.

 

[lklundin]

The seasonal storage issue is one of the remaining problems with a all-renewable national energy system. The criteria are such that long-term (i.e. 6 months) storage of energy requires extremely low costs per kWh. The leading contenders are mineral based thermal storage; hydrogen; and (ironically) methane. These would all be created with renewable energy in summer, not extracted.

One such option, which works well for insulated houses to be constructed on all but the tiniest parcels of land, is a ground coupled heat exchanger, i.e. a long liquid-filled tube buried in your land and passing through a heat-pump. Modern heat-pumps will during the winter be able to extract 3 to 4 units of energy in addition to each unit of energy consumed (as electricity). The tube (and thus the land) has to be dimensioned so there is still heat to extract when spring arrives - and the summer has to be warm enough to reheat the soil that the tube has cooled down during winter. The installation can double as house-cooler during hot summers. The principle works especially well in houses with low-temperature water heating via a heavy (i.e. high heat-capacity) floor, since then one can power the heat-exchanger mostly during the day via solar cells - or during the night, if favorable night-pricing is available.

Around here, such new houses with solar panels and heat recovery ventilation are basically energy neutral.

The chimney sweeper doesn't like them much.

 

[Topher]

One such option, which works well for insulated houses to be constructed on all but the tiniest parcels of land, is a ground coupled heat exchanger, i.e. a long liquid-filled tube buried in your land and passing through a heat-pump. Modern heat-pumps will during the winter be able to extract 3 to 4 units of energy in addition to each unit of energy consumed (as electricity). The tube (and thus the land) has to be dimensioned so there is still heat to extract when spring arrives - and the summer has to be warm enough to reheat the soil that the tube has cooled down during winter. The installation can double as house-cooler during hot summers. The principle works especially well in houses with low-temperature water heating via a heavy (i.e. high heat-capacity) floor, since then one can power the heat-exchanger mostly during the day via solar cells - or during the night, if favorable night-pricing is available.

That isn't really what I meant by thermal storage. Take the tiniest lot you mention, fill the (insulated) basement volume with sand and tubing. Pump solar heated water through the tubing during the summer. Pump water through pipes in the sand into the house in the winter. No compressor required. With a Passivhaus house, 8 feet depth of basement stores enough heat to warm the same footprint of house.

(The trouble with ground coupled heat pumps is the large initial expense. Especially for well-insulated houses, as the cost doesn't scale down very well.)

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

One such option, which works well for insulated houses to be constructed on all but the tiniest parcels of land, is a ground coupled heat exchanger, i.e. a long liquid-filled tube buried in your land and passing through a heat-pump. Modern heat-pumps will during the winter be able to extract 3 to 4 units of energy in addition to each unit of energy consumed (as electricity). The tube (and thus the land) has to be dimensioned so there is still heat to extract when spring arrives - and the summer has to be warm enough to reheat the soil that the tube has cooled down during winter. The installation can double as house-cooler during hot summers. The principle works especially well in houses with low-temperature water heating via a heavy (i.e. high heat-capacity) floor, since then one can power the heat-exchanger mostly during the day via solar cells - or during the night, if favorable night-pricing is available.

Around here, such new houses with solar panels and heat recovery ventilation are basically energy neutral.

The chimney sweeper doesn't like them much.

I'm sure some locale cases favor ground over air heat pumps but not many and the fraction is dropping by the year now that CO2 based air-space heat pumps are becoming cheaper and more widely available. They are a lot cheaper to buy and install, the COP at low(ish) temperatures is now in the 3+ range, and operating costs are lower because they have less tubing.

Scandinavia, not so much.