billeisele 130 #26 April 22, 2016 billvon>An interesting article that seems to say different things. First off let's presume that it's not biased but >factual. It infers that a $13 increase a month is OK. Then it gets garbled with other math. Let's just >assume that $13 a month is what it says. >The problem with that is 80% clean would cost at least 40% more, probably much more. That number >comes from our actual experience in SC. Agreed - at current prices. Solar-PV prices have fallen 100 fold in 36 years, and is predicted to drop another 40% within the next 5. Battery storage prices have fallen 12 fold in the past 25 years, and are predicted to continue to drop about 5% a year going forward. Sales of such systems to time-shift solar power are already taking off in Australia and Hawaii due to high power prices and utility issues with unreliable generation. Load aggregation has been becoming more and more common. Initially done only by utilities in California and Hawaii, nowadays utilities use this method as a standard method of dealing with unreliable generation. >The whole project is $11 billion for 2,234 MW. That's $4.90/watt. The Desert Sunlight plant, a 550 megawatt plant recently completed in California, was about $3 a watt. Utility scale solar PV for new power plants is now being quoted at about $2.50 a watt. The $164 number is useful because it's a measure of what level of improvement in technology we need to be able to achieve those costs. That improvement in technology is being driven by demand, which in turn is being driven by incentives and higher power prices. >I suspect that the wording in the survey doesn't provide any education about the unintended >consequences of rising utility costs. Nor does it attempt to educate them on the health risks of the coal power plants they are relying on now. Indeed, including either one of those would invalidate the survey. The survey is valuable because it gives us a glimpse of what people, knowing what they know now, are willing to pay for cleaner power. thanks for the intelligent convo, always enjoy comparing the perspectives from the two coasts yep, as technology prices drop all kinds of previously unimaginable things can occur, we've agreed before that energy storage is THE game changer yep, locations with high power costs will be the first economic adopters, in SC residential is about 12 cents, a high load factor industrial customer is about 8 cents Our $11 billion plant cost covers all costs including new transmission and substations, does the Desert Sunlight plant cost include those? and what is the annual solar availability in that area and in your area? if you Google Map Jenkinsville SC you'll see our nuke construction, it's big boy construction, our website has the videos, the main crane has a 570' front boom lifting 7500 tons https://www.scana.com/investors/nuclear-development I don't understand the paragraph about load aggregationGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #27 April 22, 2016 QuoteAmericans, in general, are willing to pay about $150 more a year to get more renewable energy in their power mix. (From a survey in 2012, here:http://www.nature.com/...ll/nclimate1527.html) Well no one asked me. If I had the coin, I'd build me a house with solar panels on the roof; a windmill, passive solar in the design of the house, rain collection with ion exchange resin, RO filters and damn near anything else to get the hell off the grid. I don't like utility bills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 420 #28 April 22, 2016 As a reef keeper for the last twenty years, I can assure you that the situation is not as dire as you may think. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coral-reefs-show-remarkable-ability-to-recover-from-near-death/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #29 April 23, 2016 brenthutchAs a reef keeper for the last twenty years, I can assure you that the situation is not as dire as you may think. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coral-reefs-show-remarkable-ability-to-recover-from-near-death/ Nice to see you link to a real science article. But if you read it carefully it does not support your position. The sub headline is: Scientists have identified key factors that enable corals to recover from bleaching events brought on by global warming It goes on to explain the mechanism of recovery then finishes by saying If coral reefs are to thrive in the Anthropocene—the current epoch in which human activity has become a driving force on the planet—CO2 levels in the atmosphere will have to drop.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 420 #30 April 23, 2016 Pure unsupported speculation. Corals came into existence with much higher tempertures and CO2 levels. In fact I use CO2 injection to maintain calcium and carbonate levels in my tank. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #31 April 23, 2016 brenthutchPure unsupported speculation. Corals came into existence with much higher tempertures and CO2 levels. In fact I use CO2 injection to maintain calcium and carbonate levels in my tank. Hey, you are the one who posted the link to the article, not me. Now you are telling me the article is only speculative. Deadenders not only believe every headline that looks good to them, but they don't even bother reading past it for context.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #32 April 23, 2016 >Pure unsupported speculation. You posted the link. Are you arguing with yourself here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,741 #33 April 23, 2016 >Our $11 billion plant cost covers all costs including new transmission and substations, >does the Desert Sunlight plant cost include those? and what is the annual solar >availability in that area and in your area? I know it covers the feeder to the SCE transmission line going through the area (about 5 miles.) I don't know if it covers any additional costs SCE incurred by allowing the connection. >if you Google Map Jenkinsville SC you'll see our nuke construction, it's big boy >construction, our website has the videos, the main crane has a 570' front boom lifting >7500 tons Cool. I think a pretty ideal mid-range goal for the US is nuclear for baseline power, natural gas for peaking (via traditional peakers and rapid start up combined cycle plants) and renewables for opportunity energy. >I don't understand the paragraph about load aggregation It might be a local (California) term. The official definition is "An aggregation at one or more Participating Load Locations, created by the California ISO in consultation with the relevant Participating Load, for the purposes of enabling participation of the Participating Load in the California ISO Markets like Generation by submitting Supply Bids when offering Curtailable Demand." As I understand that legalese, CAL-ISO requires utilities to maintain a given generation margin to ensure grid stability in the event of unplanned plant shutdowns, loss of renewable energy etc. Per a recent rule they are allowed to aggregate (combine) sheddable load and treat that as part of their margin. So SDG+E can contract with a local company that can guarantee a significant load reduction within (say) five minutes by collecting guarantees from _other_ companies that they will shed X percent of their load within that timeframe. SDG+E calls them, they call the companies and demand is reduced. (The companies get a refund for going off-line quickly.) The chunk of load that can be shed together is called the aggregataed load, and it is treated almost like a peaker in terms of its usefulness in maintaining margin. At my company we have a NG peaker that can handle about 75% of the load of our main campus. (It's also our emergency generator for code purposes.) We can be online quickly and at full power within about 10 minutes, and thus shed that amount of load, which makes us eligible for some load aggregation outfits but not others. It's somewhat academic in the summer anyway - during hot days we run the turbines for power and use the waste heat to run an absorption chiller to run air conditioning. So we're running them anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 420 #34 April 23, 2016 gowlerk***Pure unsupported speculation. Corals came into existence with much higher tempertures and CO2 levels. In fact I use CO2 injection to maintain calcium and carbonate levels in my tank. Hey, you are the one who posted the link to the article, not me. Now you are telling me the article is only speculative. Deadenders not only believe every headline that looks good to them, but they don't even bother reading past it for context. The article was fine, the FACTS were germane to the topic of coral reefs, it does go off the rails when it speculates about the Anthropocene. "The Anthropocene is a proposed epoch that begins when human activities started to have a significant global impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems.[1][2][3] Neither the International Commission on Stratigraphy nor the International Union of Geological Sciences has yet officially approved the term as a recognized subdivision of geological time" Let me break it down for you further: What did happen = fact, what might happen = speculation. I know this is difficult for you to get your head around, so I will give you an example. A Canadian team has not won the Stanley Cup in more than twenty years. FACT A Canadian team will never win a Stanley Cup again. SPECULATION Ring the bell, class dismissed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #35 April 23, 2016 QuoteI know this is difficult for you to get your head around, so I will give you an example. Hmmm. Thanks for teaching me how to think. Next time you link to a real science article I will just read the headline and toss the rest in the garbage like you do. Now that I understand the proper brenthutch way of viewing the world. In the meantime I'm going to enjoy the longer summers and milder winters here. With the shorter hockey season I think Canada may be done with that soon. Look out for our new soccer prowess coming soon.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #36 April 23, 2016 Wrong. They have a rate they can achive. Until just recently the company I work for was not getting their return on the gas investment. Utilities are given an allowed rate of return, not a guaranteed rate of return."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,836 #37 April 23, 2016 brenthutchAs a reef keeper for the last twenty years, I can assure you that the situation is not as dire as you may think. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coral-reefs-show-remarkable-ability-to-recover-from-near-death/ From the article: Scientists have identified key factors that enable corals to recover from bleaching events brought on by global warming Looks like you just contradicted your own position.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #38 April 23, 2016 rushmcWrong. They have a rate they can achive. Until just recently the company I work for was not getting their return on the gas investment. Utilities are given an allowed rate of return, not a guaranteed rate of return. None the less, they are protected utility monopolies and will never be allowed to fail. You work in a stable environment and your job is secure, just like Kallend. If you want to go into a more dynamic industry you are free to do so. But you would then face the insecurity inherent in the possibility of failure. In other words, your health care is now secure, unlike many millions of Americans.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,836 #39 April 23, 2016 gowlerkYou work in a stable environment and your job is secure, just like Kallend. Just to be clear, at most universities tenure is not a guarantee of lifetime employment. A tenured faculty member can still be fired for cause (such as misconduct, failing to turn up for classes...), if their program is discontinued, of if the university is in financial distress. Tenure simply protects you against being fired for expressing opinions that the administration doesn't like, and even that is getting a little iffy these days, with students being so sensitive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #40 April 23, 2016 gowlerk***Wrong. They have a rate they can achive. Until just recently the company I work for was not getting their return on the gas investment. Utilities are given an allowed rate of return, not a guaranteed rate of return. None the less, they are protected utility monopolies and will never be allowed to fail. You work in a stable environment and your job is secure, just like Kallend. If you want to go into a more dynamic industry you are free to do so. But you would then face the insecurity inherent in the possibility of failure. In other words, your health care is now secure, unlike many millions of Americans. All of this is not totally true either. And I can get let go much easier than kallend ever could be. That I know is true"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #41 April 23, 2016 rushmc******Wrong. They have a rate they can achive. Until just recently the company I work for was not getting their return on the gas investment. Utilities are given an allowed rate of return, not a guaranteed rate of return. None the less, they are protected utility monopolies and will never be allowed to fail. You work in a stable environment and your job is secure, just like Kallend. If you want to go into a more dynamic industry you are free to do so. But you would then face the insecurity inherent in the possibility of failure. In other words, your health care is now secure, unlike many millions of Americans. All of this is not totally true either. And I can get let go much easier than kallend ever could be. That I know is true So then, both of you can be dismissed for cause, or be layed off due to economic circumstances. But both of you are in similar positions in that your institutions are regarded as needed by society for the foreseeable future. Not like coal miners.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #42 April 23, 2016 Coal miners are getting screwed by the government aided by the greenie alarmist wackos...."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,836 #43 April 23, 2016 rushmcCoal miners are getting screwed by the government aided by the greenie alarmist wackos.... You forgot premature deaths due to safety violations by mine owners like Mr. Blankenship.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,103 #44 April 23, 2016 rushmcCoal miners are getting screwed by the government aided by the greenie alarmist wackos.... But their children won't follow them into the mines. And they won't die slowly and horribly from miner's lung. It's a good living, but there is a reason the pay is high. It costs you your health. But all that is beside the point. The demand for coal never existed to provide jobs, it existed to provide energy. We are getting our energy elsewhere. A different set of people will be employed in those industries. A nice side benefit is those workers will live longer. And the deadenders will be defeated. As they always are.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #45 April 23, 2016 kallend***Coal miners are getting screwed by the government aided by the greenie alarmist wackos.... You forgot premature deaths due to safety violations by mine owners like Mr. Blankenship. I seem to remember a few premature deaths in the workplace - Who was the big boss then? And just a few more premature deaths.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #46 April 23, 2016 Cool. I think a pretty ideal mid-range goal for the US is nuclear for baseline power, natural gas for peaking (via traditional peakers and rapid start up combined cycle plants) and renewables for opportunity energy. >I don't understand the paragraph about load aggregation It might be a local (California) term. The official definition is "An aggregation at one or more Participating Load Locations, created by the California ISO in consultation with the relevant Participating Load, for the purposes of enabling participation of the Participating Load in the California ISO Markets like Generation by submitting Supply Bids when offering Curtailable Demand." As I understand that legalese, CAL-ISO requires utilities to maintain a given generation margin to ensure grid stability in the event of unplanned plant shutdowns, loss of renewable energy etc. Per a recent rule they are allowed to aggregate (combine) sheddable load and treat that as part of their margin. So SDG+E can contract with a local company that can guarantee a significant load reduction within (say) five minutes by collecting guarantees from _other_ companies that they will shed X percent of their load within that timeframe. SDG+E calls them, they call the companies and demand is reduced. (The companies get a refund for going off-line quickly.) The chunk of load that can be shed together is called the aggregataed load, and it is treated almost like a peaker in terms of its usefulness in maintaining margin. At my company we have a NG peaker that can handle about 75% of the load of our main campus. (It's also our emergency generator for code purposes.) We can be online quickly and at full power within about 10 minutes, and thus shed that amount of load, which makes us eligible for some load aggregation outfits but not others. It's somewhat academic in the summer anyway - during hot days we run the turbines for power and use the waste heat to run an absorption chiller to run air conditioning. So we're running them anyway. one issue we're seeing with solar is the abrupt drop when a cloud rolls in, the generation drops but the load doesn't drop, this creates artificial peaks and load following this is expensive, gets us back to the point that regardless of the amount of alternative energy we still have to have the same amount of traditional generation, thus the cost of power is higher this is being discussed nationwide and will be resolved with higher basic facility charges, the conventional net metering concept is changing load aggregation - we have that program, it's simply an Interruptible Load program, we use it for system emergencies sounds like you are using your turbine for peak shaving, we wouldn't allow a customer to do that if they were Interruptible, when we need them they would already be off the grid thus no help in managing demandGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #47 April 23, 2016 brenthutchNot just efficient, they are morally superior. http://youtu.be/R5KoYJ64vjA At 7:20 Sen. Boxer gets schooled. That was getting schooled? Man, philosopher school sucks.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 420 #48 April 24, 2016 kallend***As a reef keeper for the last twenty years, I can assure you that the situation is not as dire as you may think. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coral-reefs-show-remarkable-ability-to-recover-from-near-death/ From the article: Scientists have identified key factors that enable corals to recover from bleaching events brought on by global warming Looks like you just contradicted your own position. Global warming = natural, predicable, and well established El'nino event. 1998 was stronger than 2015, if CO2 played a significant role it would be the other way around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 420 #49 April 24, 2016 GTAVercetti***Not just efficient, they are morally superior. http://youtu.be/R5KoYJ64vjA At 7:20 Sen. Boxer gets schooled. That was getting schooled? Man, philosopher school sucks. It happens again when Boxer, disparages philosophy while invoking religion, and gets called out on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #50 April 24, 2016 brenthutch******Not just efficient, they are morally superior. http://youtu.be/R5KoYJ64vjA At 7:20 Sen. Boxer gets schooled. That was getting schooled? Man, philosopher school sucks. It happens again when Boxer, disparages philosophy while invoking religion, and gets called out on it. When in the video - I missed that one.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites