SCTY Acquisition makes no strategic, financial or operational sense!

[Norbert]

There is a potential long-term issue with net metering. Faced with this issue, *decent* utility companies have done some of the following things:
(1) raised basic connection charge for everyone
(2) proposed residential peak demand charges (note, this catches the on-demand hot water users -- as it should)
(3) proposed net metering on an "hour by hour" basis (so you can't offset night usage with day usage) -- this is the Maine proposal
All of this is fine. NV Power instead proposed a punitive scheme to attack people with rooftop solar.

(3) sounds good to me... it might also contribute to an incentive to use energy storage (batteries) to return the energy when it is most valuable.

However it will take a while until those things are really necessary. Natural gas use in electricity generation is still rising and large enough to be used to adjust balance for probably a long time.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

As SCTY goes into the aggregation business I assume the aggregation will flow both ways. Excess suply to the grid obviously, but trimming demand on an aggregated basis has huge potential as well. A utility can request demand leveling in specific areas and SCTY can respond in real time by managing groups of semi-smart homes as a system. Cycling AC units on and off as a system, etc based on some pre-planned scenarios.

 

[Norbert]

From part of a post yesterday:

And utilities are already opting for solar or wind for nearly 100% of new capacity additions, the future of electricity generation will be renewables with or without residential solar.

So in so far as that is the case (I'd actually like to see a reference), if that's already nearly 100%, how are additional subsidies in the utility area going to make a difference, in your mind?

(And why do you expect utilities to make a lot of new installations when total capacity is flat since 2006?)

 

[Perfectlogic]

a) I have looked at some of your calculations and found them to be strongly biased and exaggerating, if not incorrect or misleading. Others in this thread came to similar conclusions about your arguments. Maybe that is necessary if one wants to defend the position of NV Energy.

Of course you did, because it doesn't fit your narrative. But it is not up for discussion, we know the prices of the different things in the cost chain. If you wan't to challenge my numbers then go ahead, otherwise accept the facts. And you don't challenge them by saying it's not true, you do it by showing different figures and arguing for why they make sense. Clearly you won't do that as has no other residential zealot because you don't understand the numbers, which is why you can keep fooling yourself.

 

[Perfectlogic]

From part of a post yesterday:



So in so far as that is the case (I'd actually like to see a reference), if that's already nearly 100%, how are additional subsidies in the utility area going to make a difference, in your mind?

(And why do you expect utilities to make a lot of new installations when total capacity is flat since 2006?)

It is very easy to find using google, I think you could use the experience in researching factual information yourself so I won't do it for you.

Additional subsidies will accelerate the transition to 100% of all capacity in use. 100% of new additions can be different sizes, 100% of 10 GW of additions is 10, 100% of 20 GW of additions is 20 GW. The cheaper new renewable capacity is the faster it becomes cheaper than using existing capacity.

Capacity has a lifetime of perhaps 30-40 years, you don't keep a power plant forever.

 

[Norbert]

It is very easy to find using google, I think you could use the experience in researching factual information yourself so I won't do it for you.

Additional subsidies will accelerate the transition to 100% of all capacity in use. 100% of new additions can be different sizes, 100% of 10 GW of additions is 10, 100% of 20 GW of additions is 20 GW. The cheaper new renewable capacity is the faster it becomes cheaper than using existing capacity.

Capacity has a lifetime of perhaps 30-40 years, you don't keep a power plant forever.

I'm rather getting the impression that some states simply mandate renewables, for example I read that Nevada requires 25% renewables by 2025.

I'll respond to your other message later on.

 

[Norbert]

(continued from previous post)

So you suggested using the numbers that result from a simple search, and I find this report with numbers for Jan-Mar 2016:
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2016/mar-infrastructure.pdf
From the table labelled "New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)" and calculating the percentage, I find that 87% of new installations are renewables. Great, that is quite close to 100%. However comparing the number to "total available capacity", I find that it is only 0.68% improvement per year. This means based on this rate, it would take about 30 years to achieve an improvement of about 20%.

And looking at other reports suggests that there were already numerous subsidies and 'clean energy programs' in play to achieve these numbers. The same report shows that "total available capacity" of existing natural gas installations is about 43% in the US. Since current use in generation is only 33%, this means that NG generation can be increased further without requiring new installations. Considering that a new installation not only needs to provide a slightly cheaper rate, but also justify the up-front investment for a new build, subsidies of this kind would have a hard time accelerating this rate (or even double it, as you seem to suggest), and as far as I can tell in this thread, you haven't provided any numbers showing otherwise.

Compare this to the mandates set by the states which we currently discuss the most, California and Nevada:

California mandates 33% renewables by 2020, and 50% by 2030. (California Renewable Energy Overview and Programs)
Nevada mandates 25% by 2025.

So based on the info I've seen from you, and the fact that you only refer me to google in response to my above questions, I have to conclude that the effect of subsidies for utilities of the kind which you argue for, would fall far short of programs already in place in California and Nevada, at least.

 

[Perfectlogic]

(continued from previous post)

So you suggested using the numbers that result from a simple search, and I find this report with numbers for Jan-Mar 2016:
http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/2016/mar-infrastructure.pdf
From the table labelled "New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)" and calculating the percentage, I find that 87% of new installations are renewables. Great, that is quite close to 100%. However comparing the number to "total available capacity", I find that it is only 0.68% improvement per year. This means based on this rate, it would take about 30 years to achieve an improvement of about 20%.

And looking at other reports suggests that there were already numerous subsidies and 'clean energy programs' in play to achieve these numbers. The same report shows that "total available capacity" of existing natural gas installations is about 43% in the US. Since current use in generation is only 33%, this means that NG generation can be increased further without requiring new installations. Considering that a new installation not only needs to provide a slightly cheaper rate, but also justify the up-front investment for a new build, subsidies of this kind would have a hard time accelerating this rate (or even double it, as you seem to suggest), and as far as I can tell in this thread, you haven't provided any numbers showing otherwise.

Compare this to the mandates set by the states which we currently discuss the most, California and Nevada:

California mandates 33% renewables by 2020, and 50% by 2030. (California Renewable Energy Overview and Programs)
Nevada mandates 25% by 2025.

So based on the info I've seen from you, and the fact that you only refer me to google in response to my above questions, I have to conclude that the effect of subsidies for utilities of the kind which you argue for, would fall far short of programs already in place in California and Nevada, at least.

Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The growth of solar is exponential, yes so far it is not a large part of the energy mix, but it will be soon. Just a few years ago solar couldn't compete on price, today solar is the cheapest means of producing power in some parts of the US. This year more than 10GW of solar is expected, up from something like 6GW last year, the total generation capacity is around 1000GW in the US. I think we will see 20-30GW in a few or 5 years time. And in 10 years solar might have dropped low enough in price to become cheaper than just the fuel for the gas plants, if that happens the entire existing capacity will obviously be swapped out as soon as possible, might still take another 10 years or something like that. And that is assuming we at that time will have found a way to store energy cheaply, which I think is likely too.

You can find data on LCOE here https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf from what I've gathered this info seems pretty spot on across the board, many other sites completely overestimate the cost of renewables which is pretty stupid as we can see the PPAs being made, like the recent 3.7c/kwh solar project in CA. Solar and wind is probably already the cheapest way of producing energy in a large part of the US, but the intermittency of renewables adds to the cost of balancing production and demand. If we found a way to store energy very cheaply soon, something like 2-3c/kwh perhaps then we could probably be 100% renewable in 15-20 years.

 

[Norbert]

Solar power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The growth of solar is exponential, yes so far it is not a large part of the energy mix, but it will be soon. Just a few years ago solar couldn't compete on price, today solar is the cheapest means of producing power in some parts of the US. This year more than 10GW of solar is expected, up from something like 6GW last year, the total generation capacity is around 1000GW in the US. I think we will see 20-30GW in a few or 5 years time. And in 10 years solar might have dropped low enough in price to become cheaper than just the fuel for the gas plants, if that happens the entire existing capacity will obviously be swapped out as soon as possible, might still take another 10 years or something like that. And that is assuming we at that time will have found a way to store energy cheaply, which I think is likely too.

You can find data on LCOE here https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf from what I've gathered this info seems pretty spot on across the board, many other sites completely overestimate the cost of renewables which is pretty stupid as we can see the PPAs being made, like the recent 3.7c/kwh solar project in CA. Solar and wind is probably already the cheapest way of producing energy in a large part of the US, but the intermittency of renewables adds to the cost of balancing production and demand. If we found a way to store energy very cheaply soon, something like 2-3c/kwh perhaps then we could probably be 100% renewable in 15-20 years.

"Solar is exponential"
... yes, I think we all here agree on that. Maybe we could just leave it at that.

"If we found a way to store energy very cheaply soon, something like 2-3c/kwh perhaps then we could probably be 100% renewable in 15-20 years."
... well, if your line of reasoning is now unrelated to the 30-40 year lifetime of power plants, and if you are saying all other conditions are already met for 100% renewable happening that fast, then it would seem it can't reasonably get much faster than that, and again I'd ask how would additional utility subsidies make a difference. We've gone from the question of effect to the question of need.

 

[Perfectlogic]

"Solar is exponential"
... yes, I think we all here agree on that. Maybe we could just leave it at that.

"If we found a way to store energy very cheaply soon, something like 2-3c/kwh perhaps then we could probably be 100% renewable in 15-20 years."
... well, if your line of reasoning is now unrelated to the 30-40 year lifetime of power plants, and if you are saying all other conditions are already met for 100% renewable happening that fast, then it would seem it can't reasonably get much faster than that, and again I'd ask how would additional utility subsidies make a difference. We've gone from the question of effect to the question of need.

The utilities choose the cheapest option, that is their mandate and is seen played out in the recent shift from coal to NG as that fuel cost have dropped. Right now renewables are the cheapest option for new generation added, which is replacement of old plants, perhaps 40 years old. If solar dropped another 30% in cost, it might make sense to not only swap out the very old plants for solar, but also the 30 year old plants. If solar then dropped another 30%... you probably get the point. Solar's LCOE is dropping 10%/year on its own, and added subsidies would obviously make it even cheaper. The cheaper it is the more utilities will install. I don't think we even need to raise the subsidies further, the 30% ITC is fine, solar is growing very fast. But I would rather the money spent on residential solar would go into large scale solar as it simply would have more of an impact.

 

[Norbert]

The utilities choose the cheapest option, that is their mandate and is seen played out in the recent shift from coal to NG as that fuel cost have dropped. Right now renewables are the cheapest option for new generation added, which is replacement of old plants, perhaps 40 years old. If solar dropped another 30% in cost, it might make sense to not only swap out the very old plants for solar, but also the 30 year old plants. If solar then dropped another 30%... you probably get the point. Solar's LCOE is dropping 10%/year on its own, and added subsidies would obviously make it even cheaper. The cheaper it is the more utilities will install. I don't think we even need to raise the subsidies further, the 30% ITC is fine, solar is growing very fast. But I would rather the money spent on residential solar would go into large scale solar as it simply would have more of an impact.

Ah, we are back to replacing old power plants.

Actually, after reading this twice, I'm thinking: If you are saying renewables are already being chosen for being cheaper, and Solar is dropping 10%/year, maybe the time for utilities to require subsidies is already over.

However, homeowners don't necessarily want the absolutely cheapest option, and with battery cost decreasing as well, at some point solar+battery cost will be low enough for many to want rooftop solar, for example to be independent of blackouts and utilities, and it makes sense for everyone to use the existing space and reduce the need for power lines. So I predict that eventually we'll have a lot of rooftop solar one way or the other, and therefore utilities should be cautious not to create an overcapacity.

 

[Perfectlogic]

Ah, we are back to replacing old power plants.

What do you mean we are back to that? All new capacity in the US is replacement of old capacity.

Actually, after reading this twice, I'm thinking: If you are saying renewables are already being chosen for being cheaper, and Solar is dropping 10%/year, maybe the time for utilities to require subsidies is already over.

The subsidies will be faded out over the next 6 or 7 years I believe is how long the recent extention lasted. I also think that is fine because by that time solar will be cheaper than FF anyway. But in any case subsidies will only accelerate the transition as I have explained.

If people want residential that is obviously their choice, but utilities shouldn't be forced to by their power for 16c/kwh when they have other businesses willing to sell them solar power for 3.7c/kwh, that is just absurd when residential solar is recieving a large subsidy to begin with. The only scenario where we get an overcapacity due to a huge amount of residential solar is if the insane subsidies consists and spreads out through the US, this is very unlikely though. If I lived in the US I wouldn't want to pay for someone else getting rooftop solar when it is 1/3rd the price to place those panels on a field, and I am pretty sure most people would agree.

 

[Norbert]

...utilities shouldn't be forced to by their power for 16c/kwh when they have other businesses willing to sell them solar power for 3.7c/kwh, ...

Are you saying there is a place and time where utilities charge 16 c/kWh for power that costs them only 3.7c/kwh ??? That sounds like a problem in itself.

Do you think it is fair that solar customers have to pay the same for CO2 costs as customers using mostly Ng and coal? For example, that solar customers have to keep paying for the subsidies and investments in renewables, even though they have already changed to renewables?

 

[Perfectlogic]

Okay I'm done, I have already explained why what you are now saying doesn't make any sense at all, you just either can't or won't understand it, dream on.

 

[Norbert]

Okay I'm done, I have already explained why what you are now saying doesn't make any sense at all, you just either can't or won't understand it, dream on.

You do not have a consistent explanation. You make various claims here and there, but they don't add up.

For example, you have claimed that there are places where the allocated cost of non-solar electricity is effectively smaller than 5.2 c/kWh because it avoids having to turn off power plants. But since then, I have explained that natural gas is large enough to account for load balancing. (Specifically in Nevada it is very large, more than 60% as of 2014).

 

[TheTalkingMule]

You do not have a consistent explanation. You make various claims here and there, but they don't add up.

PL is simply trolling the board for a reaction and most folks here have him on Ignore. You may want to try the same.

 

[Perfectlogic]

You do not have a consistent explanation. You make various claims here and there, but they don't add up.

For example, you have claimed that there are places where the allocated cost of non-solar electricity is effectively smaller than 5.2 c/kWh because it avoids having to turn off power plants. But since then, I have explained that natural gas is large enough to account for load balancing. (Specifically in Nevada it is very large, more than 60% as of 2014).

Yes, at some points of the day electricity generation is cheaper than 5c/kwh, for example NG during low demand periods and large scale solar during that same period of the mid day which is the cause of the low net demand. What do you even mean by the last part of your sentence? Yes NG is used for load balancing, but it is very expensive. The NG plants used for the peak demand are called peaker plants and as you can see from my link the cost of power from those plants is around 20c/kwh because they are only used a few hours per day. So on average during the day the cost of electricity is higher than 5c/kwh, and then you add distribution and a 10% profit margin and end up around 12c/kwh.

So residents with rooftop solar are selling power to the utility at the time of day where electricity is the cheapest, and then gets the power back when it is much more expensive to generate due to high demand. And on top of that they aren't even paying for using the grid infrastructure in states like CA.

@Mule

Repeating yourself over and over doesn't make it true, you are delusional man. GL with your $90 SCTY leaps lol.

 

[Norbert]

Yes, at some points of the day electricity generation is cheaper than 5c/kwh, for example NG during low demand periods and large scale solar during that same period of the mid day which is the cause of the low net demand. What do you even mean by the last part of your sentence? Yes NG is used for load balancing, but it is very expensive. The NG plants used for the peak demand are called peaker plants and as you can see from my link the cost of power from those plants is around 20c/kwh because they are only used a few hours per day. So on average during the day the cost of electricity is higher than 5c/kwh, and then you add distribution and a 10% profit margin and end up around 12c/kwh.

So residents with rooftop solar are selling power to the utility at the time of day where electricity is the cheapest, and then gets the power back when it is much more expensive to generate due to high demand. And on top of that they aren't even paying for using the grid infrastructure in states like CA.

If you didn't know what my last sentence meant, there wasn't really much point in responding to that part.

I'll explain it:

As I have written before, as long as solar is in the single-digit percentages, the much larger percentage of natural gas can load balance solar.
That means there is no potential need to turn off power plants, which was your reasoning behind a price lower than 5c/kwh:

This is from your post June 28th, as far as I know the only one where you give a reason:

If you were wondering the actual cost of electricity from nat gas is around $52-$78/mwh https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf and that is at a cost of $3.5/MMBtu which is higher than it is today. When the demand is lowest the real cost is effectively lower than the average because it costs money to shut down and restart a plant. So the excess solar power utilities are forced to buy at mid day is probably worth less than 5c/kwh to them, perhaps even much less than that.

So without any potential need to shut down power plants, the cost for NG, according to your own data, is the range 5 to 8c/kWh. And the efficiency of NG plants at low load is actually smaller, so the saved cost is more likely closer to the upper end of that range.

In that context, I should also say that the "duck curve", which you have referred to, doesn't show simply demand, as you kept saying, but demand with current and future projections of renewable generation already subtracted. Furthermore the graph is visually misleading since it doesn't start at zero MWh, and magnifies the differences in the higher range.

The difference in demand itself, between, let's say, 2pm and 7 pm or 8 pm, is 20% or less. (On all graphs I've seen.)
(PGE's time-of-use peak rate even covers the whole range from 3 pm to 8 pm as "peak").

Still, I'm wondering, why do you think "load-balancing" is a separate cost in itself, separate from NG ? Peak plants are needed even without solar. They are not a consequence of renewables. That kind of thinking would perhaps come from times where coal was a larger part of the generation, and NG was more expensive than coal.

 

[Perfectlogic]

If you didn't know what my last sentence meant, there wasn't really much point in responding to that part.

I'll explain it:

As I have written before, as long as solar is in the single-digit percentages, the much larger percentage of natural gas can load balance solar.
That means there is no potential need to turn off power plants, which was your reasoning behind a price lower than 5c/kwh:

This is from your post June 28th, as far as I know the only one where you give a reason:



So without any potential need to shut down power plants, the cost for NG, according to your own data, is the range 5 to 8c/kWh. And the efficiency of NG plants at low load is actually smaller, so the saved cost is more likely closer to the upper end of that range.

In that context, I should also say that the "duck curve", which you have referred to, doesn't show simply demand, as you kept saying, but demand with current and future projections of renewable generation already subtracted. Furthermore the graph is visually misleading since it doesn't start at zero MWh, and magnifies the differences in the higher range.

The difference in demand itself, between, let's say, 2pm and 7 pm or 8 pm, is 20% or less. (On all graphs I've seen.)
(PGE's time-of-use peak rate even covers the whole range from 3 pm to 8 pm as "peak").

Still, I'm wondering, why do you think "load-balancing" is a separate cost in itself, separate from NG ? Peak plants are needed even without solar. They are not a consequence of renewables. That kind of thinking would perhaps come from times where coal was a larger part of the generation, and NG was more expensive than coal.

This is a waste of time, for both of us. I have adressed every single point 100 times so we wont get further. I should have quit a while ago, if someone can't understand how residential solar is far from financially viable when it is 16c/kwh and large scale solar is 3.7c/kwh they just don't want to understand. Funny how the mule is saying I'm trolling, feels more like the other way around.

 

[30seconds]

This is a waste of time, for both of us. I have adressed every single point 100 times so we wont get further. I should have quit a while ago, if someone can't understand how residential solar is far from financially viable when it is 16c/kwh and large scale solar is 3.7c/kwh they just don't want to understand. Funny how the mule is saying I'm trolling, feels more like the other way around.

If it is a waste of time for you to understand that the US is a very big market with diverse needs & economics then yes, I agree that you should quit.