Stanford cancels all summer classes - power outages -

[AdamOnFirst]

Right winger here...
The fear of electric cars overwhelming the grid is probably way overblown.

Presumably, a large number of people with them will also have ice cars as well. And a significant number of those will have a power wall and in California rooftop solar...it would be almost a no brainer if you have the upfront cash.

With a virtual power grid the sponsoring 'utility' will pay to suck power from the power wall and distribute it where needed.

With a fully charged ev, they could even suck power from the ev attache to the power wall.

The current virtual grids typically allow you to set how much of your power they can suck out to distribute.

EVs may actually stabilize the grid on the production side.

It is my understanding that the problem at Stanford was on the distribution side, which EVs have nothing to do with

Right winger who works in this exact part of the energy industry here. If every single rich person in the state bought a power wall, it wouldn't even come close to providing the capacity for grid scale storage that you're talking about with EVs. I'm not going to start throwing kwh calculations out there, but you're literally orders of magnitude short. Commercial/industrial microgrids and tiny home batteries are cool and have a wide variety of very good and economic uses and should be and are deploying a lot, but it's not even close to solving California's broader shortage problems, much less being able to take on the load for drastically expanded EVs. To give you just one idea of the type of problem microgrids CAN and are solving today in California, rural communities whose long powerlines have caused wildfires and blackouts are building microgrids with distributed generation in to A> lower the long-term distribution costs of the very long range transmission and B> avoid multi-day operator blackouts during adverse wind conditions necessitated by the need to avoid more wildfires.

EVs are very cool and powerful. The short answer to this question is your EV is not allowed to charge during peak hours, probably from about noon to 9, maybe longer. The longer answer is... it's a massive issue.

All that said, **** Stanford! The PAC12 is so broke, they can't even have class. Come to NU, kids!

 

[ricko654321]

Fon't forget Afghanistan. That country had a That we basically just turned over to the Chinese. There is also the issue of wast production A lot of waste is produced in making solar panels. They have a 20-25 year life and there are no plans for recycling when they are scrapped It is an environmental nightmare

The reason the paper while old is relevant was it was dealing with the value of the additional generation Not costs. Without storage, the benefit of additional generation still declines the more that is added at a similar rate. And additional storage would benefit nuclear as well. Just saying that the renewable energy sector is not the be all end all answer people push it as. Germany is finding that out. In Germany's defense, they really don't have much of anything as far as indigenous sources of energy so I can understand why they are taking some of the approach that they are. But their abandoning nuclear would appear to be a huge, and very costly mistake. Their cost of electricity is something like 3-5 times the cost it is here (and double that of France which actually produces a lot more of their electricity from non CO2 sources but have a robust nuclear program)

While renewables such as solar or wind can be a valuable part of the mix, their value is as part of the mix. And we really haven't even considered the environmental aspects of waste. The economics suggest that anything over say 20% solar AND wind is probably asking for problems

Yeah I'm with you and Glades that nuclear should be a larger part of the long-term solution. A couple one-off incidents seem to have severely tainted the views of it in certain populations (Chernobyl, 3MI, Fukushima more recently) - but 3MI was actually a reasonably well managed failure, and that small amount of issues over many decades in sum total is far better than the track record of other power producing methods. It's scalable, low marginal cost, low emission, and the waste of modern nuclear is pretty manageable (though every state is overly terrified of having it stored on their land - prob need to do it on federal land somewhere).

 

[Eurocat]

though every state is overly terrified of having it stored on their land - prob need to do it on federal land somewhere).

I have a perfect place where they can store their nuclear waste, smack dab in the middle.

 

[hdhntr1]

Yeah I'm with you and Glades that nuclear should be a larger part of the long-term solution. A couple one-off incidents seem to have severely tainted the views of it in certain populations (Chernobyl, 3MI, Fukushima more recently) - but 3MI was actually a reasonably well managed failure, and that small amount of issues over many decades in sum total is far better than the track record of other power producing methods. It's scalable, low marginal cost, low emission, and the waste of modern nuclear is pretty manageable (though every state is overly terrified of having it stored on their land - prob need to do it on federal land somewhere).

Here is a bit of the history presented by an ex anti nuke. Shows how our nuclear industry was basically shutdown and what it might take to get it going again. Interesting part is how California basically has backslid. The combination of the movie China Syndrome coupled with TMI a short time later basically put an end to further development of nuclear energy in the US



It was shut down based on a lot of false information

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

Right winger who works in this exact part of the energy industry here. If every single rich person in the state bought a power wall, it wouldn't even come close to providing the capacity for grid scale storage that you're talking about with EVs. I'm not going to start throwing kwh calculations out there, but you're literally orders of magnitude short. Commercial/industrial microgrids and tiny home batteries are cool and have a wide variety of very good and economic uses and should be and are deploying a lot, but it's not even close to solving California's broader shortage problems, much less being able to take on the load for drastically expanded EVs. To give you just one idea of the type of problem microgrids CAN and are solving today in California, rural communities whose long powerlines have caused wildfires and blackouts are building microgrids with distributed generation in to A> lower the long-term distribution costs of the very long range transmission and B> avoid multi-day operator blackouts during adverse wind conditions necessitated by the need to avoid more wildfires.

EVs are very cool and powerful. The short answer to this question is your EV is not allowed to charge during peak hours, probably from about noon to 9, maybe longer. The longer answer is... it's a massive issue.

All that said, **** Stanford! The PAC12 is so broke, they can't even have class. Come to NU, kids!

I am a frequent visitor to the desert community Borrego Springs, CA that has a smart microgrid. It has been effective in helping to fend off local power outages. The community has a large solar farm that supports the microgrid. Other examples of alternative energy sources nearby are the wind generator farms esp on our local San Diego county Indian reservations., and geothermal energy plants in the nearby Salton Sea community. (Geothermal plants are located in the Salton Sea area because of the proximity to the San Andreas fault.)

Borrego Springs Microgrid | San Diego Gas & Electric

www.sdge.com

 

[No Chores]

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear power plants, but live about 70 miles from one in Perry Ohio, about which I've never heard a single complaint. Further, a little research tells me that there are 93 such plants scattered around the U.S., and I don't remember hearing about any accidents since TMI. In my humble opinion we ought to emulate France and build more. I would really hate to see more wind turbines.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear power plants, but live about 70 miles from one in Perry Ohio, about which I've never heard a single complaint. Further, a little research tells me that there are 93 such plants scattered around the U.S., and I don't remember hearing about any accidents since TMI. In my humble opinion we ought to emulate France and build more. I would really hate to see more wind turbines.

The problem with just going and building a lot of nuclear is nuclear is very expensive, probably the most expensive major form of power. Obviously it has some other very distinct advantages to nuclear though.

As for wind, it is EASILY the cheapest form of power, only really challenged by American natural gas (less so now with gas prices up). However, there are obviously other shortcomings of wind power.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I am a frequent visitor to the desert community Borrego Springs, CA that has a smart microgrid. It has been effective in helping to fend off local power outages. The community has a large solar farm that supports the microgrid. Other examples of alternative energy sources nearby are the wind generator farms esp on our local San Diego county Indian reservations., and geothermal energy plants in the nearby Salton Sea community. (Geothermal plants are located in the Salton Sea area because of the proximity to the San Andreas fault.)

Borrego Springs Microgrid | San Diego Gas & Electric

www.sdge.com

Really very cool things going on at some of the west coast major ports too. Ports are such heavy industry sites that they have some really interesting options on the table at their scale, including some of the bigger deployments of hydrogen in the world.

 

[WestCoastWildcat]

One of my college friends at NU has been a lifelong railroad buff and has worked in the railroad industry his entire career. He is currently working in the short line rr industry somewhere in the Chicago area. Prior to that he worked for one of the short line rr’s in Long Beach/LA involved in moving cargo containers off ships on to the short line to move cargo quickly from the port. He was instrumental in investing new cleaner technology for the modern rr engines that reduced pollution. The port also invested millions in upgrading the short line route to make it safer and more efficient in moving cargo off the ships and away from the port. Here’s an older article I found about his career in railroading…

Rail Insider-Short-line profile: Andrew Fox of the Chicago South Shore & South Bend, and the Pacific Harbor Line. Information For Rail Career Professionals From Progressive Railroading Magazine

www.progressiverailroading.com

 

[winnetkat]

As for wind, it is EASILY the cheapest form of power, only really challenged by American natural gas (less so now with gas prices up). However, there are obviously other shortcomings of wind power.

And getting cheaper. Being able to pair inexpensive, but extremely variable wind with some affordable kind of long-term storage would make a big difference, though.

Literally on the topic of "dirt cheap", here's an interesting story about a Finnish project storing spare summer solar and wind energy (surprise: it's windy in Finland in the winter) as heat in molten salt which can be used days or months later to heat buildings during the winter: https://www.fastcompany.com/90767492/this-startup-just-built-a-giant-battery-out-of-sand

 

[No Chores]

The problem with just going and building a lot of nuclear is nuclear is very expensive, probably the most expensive major form of power. Obviously it has some other very distinct advantages to nuclear though.

As for wind, it is EASILY the cheapest form of power, only really challenged by American natural gas (less so now with gas prices up). However, there are obviously other shortcomings of wind power.

My objection to wind turbines relates to the slaughter of birds, particularly endangered raptors like bald eagles, which are making a nice comeback here along the shores of Lake Erie. What do you know about that, and what are the other shortcomings of wind power which you mentioned. Thanks!

 

[hdhntr1]

Right winger who works in this exact part of the energy industry here. If every single rich person in the state bought a power wall, it wouldn't even come close to providing the capacity for grid scale storage that you're talking about with EVs. I'm not going to start throwing kwh calculations out there, but you're literally orders of magnitude short. Commercial/industrial microgrids and tiny home batteries are cool and have a wide variety of very good and economic uses and should be and are deploying a lot, but it's not even close to solving California's broader shortage problems, much less being able to take on the load for drastically expanded EVs. To give you just one idea of the type of problem microgrids CAN and are solving today in California, rural communities whose long powerlines have caused wildfires and blackouts are building microgrids with distributed generation in to A> lower the long-term distribution costs of the very long range transmission and B> avoid multi-day operator blackouts during adverse wind conditions necessitated by the need to avoid more wildfires.

EVs are very cool and powerful. The short answer to this question is your EV is not allowed to charge during peak hours, probably from about noon to 9, maybe longer. The longer answer is... it's a massive issue.

All that said, **** Stanford! The PAC12 is so broke, they can't even have class. Come to NU, kids!

EVs have their place and as you say, cool technical achievement. But it is not THE solution many try to make them out to be. A mix is needed. And as more are added, their value to the system diminishes just as adding solar diminishes in value the more that is added

 

[hdhntr1]

My objection to wind turbines relates to the slaughter of birds, particularly endangered raptors like bald eagles, which are making a nice comeback here along the shores of Lake Erie. What do you know about that, and what are the other shortcomings of wind power which you mentioned. Thanks!

Wind has several issues of which that is but one. Another is siting issues and still another is what to do with them when they reach end of life. On the plus side, economic value of wind generation has a better profile than solar. No source of generation is without problems

 

[hdhntr1]

The problem with just going and building a lot of nuclear is nuclear is very expensive, probably the most expensive major form of power. Obviously it has some other very distinct advantages to nuclear though.

As for wind, it is EASILY the cheapest form of power, only really challenged by American natural gas (less so now with gas prices up). However, there are obviously other shortcomings of wind power.

It isn't just the cost. It is the time frame necessary to get a plant d designed, built and up and up and operating. In the US, the time from conception to power generation at this point is likely to be at least 15 years and probably more like 20 because of all the regulations involved. Construction alone is over 10 years. Vogtle 3 and 4 will cost over $25 billion. (units 1 and 2 completed in 1987 and 1989 cost about $9 B. 2 additional units that were planned were cancelled because of costs. Heck of a risk for the companies wanting to try to build such a plant today

Compare that to Zion (a similar sized plant) constructed in the era before TMI (commissioned in 1973/4). Construction took about 5 years and the cost was about $272 per KW or about $550 million. That was about 50% more than coal plants at the time. Lack of demand and maintenance issues led to closure after about 25 years rather than the 40 year expected life. Personally I always felt it was a crime that it was retired early

 

[AdamOnFirst]

My objection to wind turbines relates to the slaughter of birds, particularly endangered raptors like bald eagles, which are making a nice comeback here along the shores of Lake Erie. What do you know about that, and what are the other shortcomings of wind power which you mentioned. Thanks!

Turbines definitely kill some birds. Not, like, a devastating number of birds, but definitely some. All forms of electricity generation have at least some impact on the environment, there is no free lunch there. Some are really bad and some are quite mild.

The primary challenge with wind is it is intermittent, meaning you get it when the wind is blowing and you don’t have control over it behind that. Now, the ability to have a large grid that moves power around to an extent mitigates this somewhat as wind power in different areas balances out, but there are simply windier days than others even across an entire grid. Solar obviously also has this issue. Solar has a very notable advantage over wind in one regard though: solar tends to produce power when it is most needed (ie, in the afternoon and the peak of the hottest days) when power demand is peaking. This is very very valuable. Wind produces more smoothly over the year, it it tends to peak in the spring and fall when power is least in demand. That makes power extremely cheap around those times, but it’s less useful in the summer and winter. Wind still produces wel at those times, but it’s not helpful that it peaks at those times.

Last, some places are windier than others. The Midwest is very very windy. A place like Nevada wind is a very mediocre option. Fortunately, solar just crushes it in Nevada, so it’s a good mix.

Those are the primary challenges with wind. In general, you can balance all these strengths together in different ways. Wind, for example, pairs tremendously well in the Midwest with natural gas for a very very affordable and quite clean power combo.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Anyone who believes that wind and solar alone can power our grid is smoking some good weed.

 

[No Chores]

Turbines definitely kill some birds. Not, like, a devastating number of birds, but definitely some. All forms of electricity generation have at least some impact on the environment, there is no free lunch there. Some are really bad and some are quite mild.

The primary challenge with wind is it is intermittent, meaning you get it when the wind is blowing and you don’t have control over it behind that. Now, the ability to have a large grid that moves power around to an extent mitigates this somewhat as wind power in different areas balances out, but there are simply windier days than others even across an entire grid. Solar obviously also has this issue. Solar has a very notable advantage over wind in one regard though: solar tends to produce power when it is most needed (ie, in the afternoon and the peak of the hottest days) when power demand is peaking. This is very very valuable. Wind produces more smoothly over the year, it it tends to peak in the spring and fall when power is least in demand. That makes power extremely cheap around those times, but it’s less useful in the summer and winter. Wind still produces wel at those times, but it’s not helpful that it peaks at those times.

Last, some places are windier than others. The Midwest is very very windy. A place like Nevada wind is a very mediocre option. Fortunately, solar just crushes it in Nevada, so it’s a good mix.

Those are the primary challenges with wind. In general, you can balance all these strengths together in different ways. Wind, for example, pairs tremendously well in the Midwest with natural gas for a very very affordable and quite clean power combo.

Thanks to guys like you I'm learning a lot!

 

[Gladeskat]

Turbines definitely kill some birds. Not, like, a devastating number of birds, but definitely some. All forms of electricity generation have at least some impact on the environment, there is no free lunch there. Some are really bad and some are quite mild.

The primary challenge with wind is it is intermittent, meaning you get it when the wind is blowing and you don’t have control over it behind that. Now, the ability to have a large grid that moves power around to an extent mitigates this somewhat as wind power in different areas balances out, but there are simply windier days than others even across an entire grid. Solar obviously also has this issue. Solar has a very notable advantage over wind in one regard though: solar tends to produce power when it is most needed (ie, in the afternoon and the peak of the hottest days) when power demand is peaking. This is very very valuable. Wind produces more smoothly over the year, it it tends to peak in the spring and fall when power is least in demand. That makes power extremely cheap around those times, but it’s less useful in the summer and winter. Wind still produces wel at those times, but it’s not helpful that it peaks at those times.

Last, some places are windier than others. The Midwest is very very windy. A place like Nevada wind is a very mediocre option. Fortunately, solar just crushes it in Nevada, so it’s a good mix.

Those are the primary challenges with wind. In general, you can balance all these strengths together in different ways. Wind, for example, pairs tremendously well in the Midwest with natural gas for a very very affordable and quite clean power combo.

Excellent summary! I would think wind power would work well along the coast and even the coast of Lake Michigan. Those breezes off the Lake are pretty nice and regular in late summer. It's one of the nice things about practicing in Evanston.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Excellent summary! I would think wind power would work well along the coast and even the coast of Lake Michigan. Those breezes off the Lake are pretty nice and regular in late summer. It's one of the nice things about practicing in Evanston.

Coastal areas are more about offshore wind TBH. For a few reasons, it’s tough to stick industrial scale wind in a dense area.

 

[docrugby1]

Watch NU Professor Mark Mills discussion of the shortcomings of wind and solar. He definitely points out the problems of alternate forms of energy. The wind turbines have a shorter lifespan than regular turbines and the blades are not biodegradable. Both solar and wind will require battery storage and massive amounts of rare earth metals. These metals will likely be provided from environmentally unfriendly sources. It may be a simplistic video but certainly is eye opening

 

[AdamOnFirst]

Watch NU Professor Mark Mills discussion of the shortcomings of wind and solar. He definitely points out the problems of alternate forms of energy. The wind turbines have a shorter lifespan than regular turbines and the blades are not biodegradable. Both solar and wind will require battery storage and massive amounts of rare earth metals. These metals will likely be provided from environmentally unfriendly sources. It may be a simplistic video but certainly is eye opening

The shorter lifespan - and thus also shorter financing window - of wind is an advantage, a huge one, not a bug. Anybody who isn’t full of shit understands this. This particular talking point is a pet peeve of mine.

Let me put it this way (I’m making this up off the top of my head, so let’s disregard the time cost of money in this particular case, which would be factored in in real life): you’re a single young man buying a car because you need one. You don’t have kids or even a wife, so you only really want a sedan. Would you rather be in a world where the car of your choice costs $10,000 and lasts 10 years or a world where that exact same car lasts 25 years but costs $25,000? This is also a world where you can realistically expect to resell your car, you’re either using it or eating the cost of it until it is done.

Odds are that in a few years there will be better and cheaper cars on the market. Or maybe in 15 years you’ll be married and would want a different car to fit your needs better. Or you’d be able to use that money for something else.

It’s the same in energy. Building a 60 year power plant is an EXTREMELY chancy investment. In fact, it’s so absurd that we had to invent the monopoly utility system in order to get anybody to finance these things. It’s entirely impossible to predict what the grid’s needs and technological capability will look like even a couple decades out, much less 60. This is why we have expensive, uneconomic power plants all over the country that are 45+ years old that are STILL being run and paid for, because the people 45 years ago had to do their best and make that commitment so long ago. As any capital investor can tell you, shortening that decision window and the ROI is very very valuable.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

edit: I apologize for the somewhat harsh tone of this response. As I said, this particular argument is particularly aggravating to me, and it’s one that’s almost always encountered in bad faith. I know you were just referring to a talk done by somebody else and I’m legitimately enjoying this conversation with you all.

 

[docrugby1]

If the turbine costs the same as a wind turbine and has a significantly longer lifespan-you would buy the wind turbine. Excuse me , I have to use the restroom.

 

[Catslash]

Go nuke or go dark

 

[hdhntr1]

Watch NU Professor Mark Mills discussion of the shortcomings of wind and solar. He definitely points out the problems of alternate forms of energy. The wind turbines have a shorter lifespan than regular turbines and the blades are not biodegradable. Both solar and wind will require battery storage and massive amounts of rare earth metals. These metals will likely be provided from environmentally unfriendly sources. It may be a simplistic video but certainly is eye opening

Do you have a link? What is a regular turbine? A steam turbine used in power plants? If so they are entirely different technologies and different materials.

 

[NJCat]

Do you have a link? What is a regular turbine? A steam turbine sued in power plants? If so they are entirely different technologies and different materials.

It's probably this (a 3 second Google search turned it up):

 

[hdhntr1]

The shorter lifespan - and thus also shorter financing window - of wind is an advantage, a huge one, not a bug. Anybody who isn’t full of shit understands this. This particular talking point is a pet peeve of mine.

Let me put it this way (I’m making this up off the top of my head, so let’s disregard the time cost of money in this particular case, which would be factored in in real life): you’re a single young man buying a car because you need one. You don’t have kids or even a wife, so you only really want a sedan. Would you rather be in a world where the car of your choice costs $10,000 and lasts 10 years or a world where that exact same car lasts 25 years but costs $25,000? This is also a world where you can realistically expect to resell your car, you’re either using it or eating the cost of it until it is done.

Odds are that in a few years there will be better and cheaper cars on the market. Or maybe in 15 years you’ll be married and would want a different car to fit your needs better. Or you’d be able to use that money for something else.

It’s the same in energy. Building a 60 year power plant is an EXTREMELY chancy investment. In fact, it’s so absurd that we had to invent the monopoly utility system in order to get anybody to finance these things. It’s entirely impossible to predict what the grid’s needs and technological capability will look like even a couple decades out, much less 60. This is why we have expensive, uneconomic power plants all over the country that are 45+ years old that are STILL being run and paid for, because the people 45 years ago had to do their best and make that commitment so long ago. As any capital investor can tell you, shortening that decision window and the ROI is very very valuable.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

edit: I apologize for the somewhat harsh tone of this response. As I said, this particular argument is particularly aggravating to me, and it’s one that’s almost always encountered in bad faith. I know you were just referring to a talk done by somebody else and I’m legitimately enjoying this conversation with you all.

I would suggest that it depends. For some the 10 year $10k car might be best but for others not. (Myself, I buy the $25k 25 year car about 3 years old for $10K. I get to drive the better quality, more reliable product for the same money)

Every source of generation has pluses and minuses. When they talk shorter life, it isn't just the projected lifespan. The blades are subject to environmental damage that has shortened the life on many of them significantly before they either need extensive maintenance or even replacement. Sometimes in as short as a couple years.

As far as continuing to use 45 year old plants, most plants (nuclear and fossil) I know of had 30-40 year design life and they were paid for during that time. And even if they only had 30-40 year design life, many were operated for 50-60 years and some significantly longer because they could. (For example, Commonwealth Edison's Stateline Station was operated from 1929-2012, a period of 83 years ) There have generally been many upgrades over the years to keep them current. If they are still being operated, they still have reasonable economics. And part of those economics is that between siting, regulations and the cost, new plants have not been able to be built to replace them.

 

[hdhntr1]

It's probably this (a 3 second Google search turned it up):

View embedded media

Thanks

 

[AdamOnFirst]

I would suggest that it depends. For some the 10 year $10k car might be best but for others not. (Myself, I buy the $25k 25 year car about 3 years old for $10K. I get to drive the better quality, more reliable product for the same money)

Every source of generation has pluses and minuses. When they talk shorter life, it isn't just the projected lifespan. The blades are subject to environmental damage that has shortened the life on many of them significantly before they either need extensive maintenance or even replacement. Sometimes in as short as a couple years.

As far as continuing to use 45 year old plants, most plants (nuclear and fossil) I know of had 30-40 year design life and they were paid for during that time. And even if they only had 30-40 year design life, many were operated for 50-60 years and some significantly longer because they could. (For example, Commonwealth Edison's Stateline Station was operated from 1929-2012, a period of 83 years ) There have generally been many upgrades over the years to keep them current. If they are still being operated, they still have reasonable economics. And part of those economics is that between siting, regulations and the cost, new plants have not been able to be built to replace them.

Again, in this analogy it’s the exact same car in both cases and you can’t buy one used or sell it. You’re either stuck driving the same car for 25 years as technology and preferences pass you by or you at least have the opportunity to change after a shorter interval.

Also, it’s funny that you think decisions about plants continuing to run are driven by economics. You live in Illinois or Ohio?

 

[hdhntr1]

Again, in this analogy it’s the exact same car in both cases and you can’t buy one used or sell it. You’re either stuck driving the same car for 25 years as technology and preferences pass you by or you at least have the opportunity to change after a shorter interval.

Also, it’s funny that you think decisions about plants continuing to run are driven by economics. You live in Illinois or Ohio?

They are not the same car. I assume you are saying the miles driven have the same value assuming that all electricity has the same value. If you want to compare it to electric plants, say the more expensive car is more like the nuclear plant. It has very low cost fuel, is reliable and can be operated day or night ramped up or down and your $10k car can only run in daylight or when the wind blows depending on the car and its intermitent operation causes traffic jams and accidents you might be closer to a fairer comparison.

And yes plants continuing to run is based on economics of what is available to the utilities and the regulations they must follow. Now days Commonwealth Edison, for example no longer owns or operates plants. They do not generate anything. They buy power from the marketplace and they are trying to do the best job of keeping costs down while keeping the system reliable. They try to buy it at the lowest overall cost but a lot of times government regulations determine a lot of how they have to accomplish that. Those economics are not just the cost per kwh. As long as plants can sell their output and make a profit they stay open but when they no longer can, they are in trouble. And a lot of times government regulations changing can change the economics.

And example is that Excelon owns a number of nuclear units that are getting more costly to operate. They are going to the state to get higher subsidies in order that they can sell their product profitably. The opposite has occurred when new regulations increased the costs of coal plants making them uneconomic and forcing their retirement.

And a number of plants or parts of them, have been sold over the years. Example ComEd sold off their fossil plants to Midwest Generation and Nuclear plants went under the Excelon umbrella. The most recent coal plant built in IL down by St Louis. Prairie State Energy (completed in 2012 had a lot of investors and some sold their share for less than their investment. Peabody had a 5.06% interest that cost them $250 mill and they sold for $57 million to Wabash Valley Power Association in 2016.

These are IL examples. I spent 15 years in plant operations (both nuclear and fossil)and then provided people to companies involved in the industry after so I dealt with the industry for almost 40 years and continue to follow what is going on

 

[AdamOnFirst]

They are not the same car. I assume you are saying the miles driven have the same value assuming that all electricity has the same value. If you want to compare it to electric plants, say the more expensive car is more like the nuclear plant. It has very low cost fuel, is reliable and can be operated day or night ramped up or down and your $10k car can only run in daylight or when the wind blows depending on the car and its intermitent operation causes traffic jams and accidents you might be closer to a fairer comparison.

And yes plants continuing to run is based on economics of what is available to the utilities and the regulations they must follow. Now days Commonwealth Edison, for example no longer owns or operates plants. They do not generate anything. They buy power from the marketplace and they are trying to do the best job of keeping costs down while keeping the system reliable. They try to buy it at the lowest overall cost but a lot of times government regulations determine a lot of how they have to accomplish that. Those economics are not just the cost per kwh. As long as plants can sell their output and make a profit they stay open but when they no longer can, they are in trouble. And a lot of times government regulations changing can change the economics.

And example is that Excelon owns a number of nuclear units that are getting more costly to operate. They are going to the state to get higher subsidies in order that they can sell their product profitably. The opposite has occurred when new regulations increased the costs of coal plants making them uneconomic and forcing their retirement.

And a number of plants or parts of them, have been sold over the years. Example ComEd sold off their fossil plants to Midwest Generation and Nuclear plants went under the Excelon umbrella. The most recent coal plant built in IL down by St Louis. Prairie State Energy (completed in 2012 had a lot of investors and some sold their share for less than their investment. Peabody had a 5.06% interest that cost them $250 mill and they sold for $57 million to Wabash Valley Power Association in 2016.

These are IL examples. I spent 15 years in plant operations (both nuclear and fossil)and then provided people to companies involved in the industry after so I dealt with the industry for almost 40 years and continue to follow what is going on

You're missing the point of the car analogy and taking it too literally. The point of the analogy was that a 25 year financial and technological commitment is going to be inherently superior than a 60 year financial commitment. Maybe if I'd made it a different product it would have been clearer. I won't argue with your point about intermittency, etc, because it's true, but also totally secondary to the bs argument about useful life of various generation techs. Not having to make 60 year bets which amount to total guesses is a major, major benefit.

It's interesting you're talking about ComEd in particular, who just had multiple executives go to prison for a massive bribery scheme in order to get the state to pass huge bailouts of their nuclear and coal fleet that were otherwise losing money hand over fist. What you said was "If they [a plant] are still being operated, they still have reasonable economics." That is an extremely untrue phrase and ComEd is one of the two utilities in the country that are the single biggest examples of why that isn't true.

 

[hdhntr1]

You're missing the point of the car analogy and taking it too literally. The point of the analogy was that a 25 year financial and technological commitment is going to be inherently superior than a 60 year financial commitment. Maybe if I'd made it a different product it would have been clearer. I won't argue with your point about intermittency, etc, because it's true, but also totally secondary to the bs argument about useful life of various generation techs. Not having to make 60 year bets which amount to total guesses is a major, major benefit.

It's interesting you're talking about ComEd in particular, who just had multiple executives go to prison for a massive bribery scheme in order to get the state to pass huge bailouts of their nuclear and coal fleet that were otherwise losing money hand over fist. What you said was "If they [a plant] are still being operated, they still have reasonable economics." That is an extremely untrue phrase and ComEd is one of the two utilities in the country that are the single biggest examples of why that isn't true.

No one is saying that committing to a huge investment that would not be ready to contribute anything to the grid for at least 15-20 years is not daunting and that shorter term investments do not have advantages. What I was commenting on was that your comparing the cars is comparing the plants whereas when you suggest the same it would look like you were comparing the electricity generated which is more akin to the utility of the car. And I was just suggesting that that utility of the electricity and cars are not the same either. Comparing the utility of the power generated from renewables vs a plant either coal or nuclear might be more akin to driving a Yugo vs and well maintained Audi/BMW etc.

Commonwealth Edison has not owned any coal fired plants since 2000 and sold their nuclear fleet in 2003. (they did sell the nuclear plants to another subsidary of Excelon and they did have below market rate purchase power agreements with the new owners) They have been only a distribution company since then. I believe you would find that the executives that were sent to jail were for actions in rate cases significantly after the dates that they sold the plants and eve after purchase power agreements had ended.

Former Commonwealth Edison Executives and Consultants Charged With Conspiring to Corruptly Influence and Reward State of Illinois Official

Former Commonwealth Edison Executives and Consultants Charged With Conspiring to Corruptly Influence and Reward State of Illinois Official

www.justice.gov

This was for actions starting in 2011 and this was after those purchase power agreements had ended

Commonwealth Edison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This shows some of the history including what was done in 2007 rate case.

No one is saying that those executives did not deserve jail time. But even with all that, electric rates offered by Com Ed including distribution charges and fees were still only about 60% of those in CA ($015 vs $0.25)

By the way. The actual price charge for the electricity here in the Chicago area was about $0.064/kwh. But this year the rate Commonwealth Edison charges for electricity part of the bill just went up by 72% on June 1 ($0.064/kwh to $0.1104/kwh. While these might be summer rates, the were about $0.064 last summer. Who knows what the prices will be in the next rate period