"Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane. Which One Are You, Vince Cable?"

[billvon 2,990]

> I'm not sure how reducing my electricity bill by $40 bucks twice a year is going to
> encourage me to save electricity.

The intent is to reduce power costs for people who use off-peak energy rather than peak energy. It's a (poor) replacement for real time pricing, which is currently in the works.

[riggerrob 643]

...
With the huge amounts now being produced by fracking, NG costs are back down where they were a few years back.

Kind of interesting. A group called CalPine (or something like that) built a bunch of NG fired plants all over the country. When NG prices spiked, they went under and the finished (or nearly finished) plants went for fire sale prices.

.............................................................

The flip side of natural gas price cycles is about to hit us. Alberta, British Columbia, Australia, etc. are currently investing billions of dollars to export liquified natural gas to asian markets. With all this over-investment, we will soon have a glut of LNG forcing Western Canada and OZ to "give away" LNG to keep LNG infrastructure functioning.
Asians will burn through most of Western Canada's NG reserves in 30 or 40 years, then leave the white bastards to freeze in the dark.
Sorry folks, but NG is only the least expensive form of energy in the short run.

[riggerrob 643]

The bhudda reminds us that "pain is inevitable, while suffering is optional."
People can chose whether or not to suffer from living too close to wind turbines.
After growing up beside railroad tracks, working near airports and living near highways, I am very good at ignoring steady noises.

[riggerrob 643]

Sure wind is not a perfect energy source, because it does not blow 24/7.
Do not worry about back-up power sources because they are already up and running: hydro-electric, nuclear reactors, coal, petroleum, natural gas, bio-mass, trash, geo-thermal, etc. all make great back-ups to wind turbines.

Try to think of wind turbines as giving a reservoir a pause to raise its water levels before it has to power the city again.

[champu 1]

billvon

> I'm not sure how reducing my electricity bill by $40 bucks twice a year is going to
> encourage me to save electricity.

The intent is to reduce power costs for people who use off-peak energy rather than peak energy. It's a (poor) replacement for real time pricing, which is currently in the works.

Except from the FAQ...

Quote

Is the credit amount connected to my electricity use?

Households: No, all residential customers of the same electricity provider will receive an equal amount for the California. [sic]

Or are you saying this just operates under the assumption that all households use about the same mix of peak and off-peak power?

[billeisele 130]

billvon

>base costs are in the $60 - $80 range

What does that mean?

ahhhh, the left coast Bill and the right coast Bill, hope you are well

there have been 3 cost studies, that I'm aware of, that have shown that the base cost for infrastructure, to be able to provide the power, are in this range

said another way, generation, transmission, substations, distribution, metering, and the equipment and systems to support that infrastructure are in the $60-$80 range per month

backing up a step (for others), net metering is often defined as, if the utility sells a kWh for 10 cents then if a customer sends a kWh to the utility they should be paid, or netted, 10 cents, admittedly that definition is not consistent and there are a few areas that tend to follow a method similar to what this post is about

the problem with this is that the base cost of infrastructure exists even if no energy (kWhs) is delivered, so when a customer is netted 10 cents they are being paid the full retail cost of the service, not for the value they are sending to the utility

in my area the actual cost, called avoided cost, (and it varies considerably) of energy is around 4 cents, that means that the difference of 6 cents (10-4=6) is the cost for everything excluding the energy

what is being heavily discussed and has been the subject of two court cases (so far), is net metering and the subsidy that occurs under the traditional definition

many believe that the payment to the customer should equal the value they are providing, in it's simplest form that is the avoided cost of energy

one way of doing this is to charge a solar customer a base rate of $70, plus the cost of energy for what they buy and subtract the avoided cost of energy for what they "sell" to the utility, it would be fair to use the value of the energy at the time of the sale

this allows the customer to contribute to the cost of the grid which they want to stay connected to and it eliminates the subsidy that non-solar customers are paying

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billeisele 130]

riggerrob

...
With the huge amounts now being produced by fracking, NG costs are back down where they were a few years back.

Kind of interesting. A group called CalPine (or something like that) built a bunch of NG fired plants all over the country. When NG prices spiked, they went under and the finished (or nearly finished) plants went for fire sale prices.

.............................................................

The flip side of natural gas price cycles is about to hit us. Alberta, British Columbia, Australia, etc. are currently investing billions of dollars to export liquified natural gas to asian markets. With all this over-investment, we will soon have a glut of LNG forcing Western Canada and OZ to "give away" LNG to keep LNG infrastructure functioning.
Asians will burn through most of Western Canada's NG reserves in 30 or 40 years, then leave the white bastards to freeze in the dark.
Sorry folks, but NG is only the least expensive form of energy in the short run.

********************************************
so true, there are 4-5 LNG export terminals in the US (there are only 8) that are presently being retrofitted to export LNG, it's a natural progression where low gas prices in the US, presently around $4 at Henry Hub with the futures strip at $4.10, will chase higher margins through exports, primarily to Japan and other Asian markets

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[champu 1]

billeisele

said another way, generation, transmission, substations, distribution, metering, and the equipment and systems to support that infrastructure are in the $60-$80 range per month.

in my area the actual cost, called avoided cost, (and it varies considerably) of energy is around 4 cents, that means that the difference of 6 cents (10-4=6) is the cost for everything excluding the energy

...charge a solar customer a base rate of $70, plus the cost of energy for what they buy and subtract the avoided cost of energy for what they "sell" to the utility, it would be fair to use the value of the energy at the time of the sale

I hear what your saying about "infrastructure ain't free", and this may be an artifact of how bills are broken down place to place, but it sounds like you're suggesting double booking the infrastructure costs against solar customers.

If what you mean is "charge them what you would have charged them to sell them what they bought, and only agree to buy back their power at cost rather than sale price to offset that" then I think it makes sense. If you structured it that way, however, I would propose removing the $0 bottom limit on your monthly bill.

[billeisele 130]

champu

***said another way, generation, transmission, substations, distribution, metering, and the equipment and systems to support that infrastructure are in the $60-$80 range per month.

in my area the actual cost, called avoided cost, (and it varies considerably) of energy is around 4 cents, that means that the difference of 6 cents (10-4=6) is the cost for everything excluding the energy

...charge a solar customer a base rate of $70, plus the cost of energy for what they buy and subtract the avoided cost of energy for what they "sell" to the utility, it would be fair to use the value of the energy at the time of the sale

I hear what your saying about "infrastructure ain't free", and this may be an artifact of how bills are broken down place to place, but it sounds like you're suggesting double booking the infrastructure costs against solar customers.

If what you mean is "charge them what you would have charged them to sell them what they bought, and only agree to buy back their power at cost rather than sale price to offset that" then I think it makes sense. If you structured it that way, however, I would propose removing the $0 bottom limit on your monthly bill.

*******************

I think I know what you're intending to say, but there would be no double booking of anything, the solar folks would simple pay their fair share of the costs

what most utilities sell is a bundled product, where energy might be 10 cents / kWh, what folks are suggesting is to unbundle the cost, charge (as an example) $70 for the connection and 4 cents for the electricity

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[champu 1]

billeisele

I think I know what you're intending to say, but there would be no double booking of anything, the solar folks would simple pay their fair share of the costs

what most utilities sell is a bundled product, where energy might be 10 cents / kWh, what folks are suggesting is to unbundle the cost, charge (as an example) $70 for the connection and 4 cents for the electricity

Gotcha... the way you wrote it the first time it kinda sounded like you were saying charge $70 plus $0.10/kWh for energy used and give back $0.04/kWh for energy generated ("cost" vs. "avoided cost" terminology)

Also, the "$70" is going to vary greatly based on population density, but you've alluded to that. As I shared in post #175, my electric bill hovers around $40-$50 total throughout the year.

[billvon 2,990]

>said another way, generation, transmission, substations, distribution, metering,
>and the equipment and systems to support that infrastructure are in the $60-$80
>range per month

Ah, I see. We're currently paying about $12 a month for basic service, with power charges on top of that. When we purchase power we do so at a rate between 16 and 38 cents a kilowatt-hour. When we sell power back we get between 2 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is what SDG+E pays for it. (Which seems pretty fair for both sides.)

There's talk of increasing the $12 a month (actually a minimum charge of $5; we are also paying for a few other things in that $12) by the end of 2015, and I'd be fine with that too.

[rushmc 23]

Now this could change things bigtime

http://www.electricitypolicy.com/news/7471-oncor-sees-affordable-batteries-in-4-years-proposes-$5-2-bn-statewide-rollout

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BartsDaddy 7]

rushmc

Now this could change things bigtime

http://www.electricitypolicy.com/news/7471-oncor-sees-affordable-batteries-in-4-years-proposes-$5-2-bn-statewide-rollout

First paragraph sounds good but not subscribing to see.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[rushmc 23]

BartsDaddy

***Now this could change things bigtime

http://www.electricitypolicy.com/news/7471-oncor-sees-affordable-batteries-in-4-years-proposes-$5-2-bn-statewide-rollout

First paragraph sounds good but not subscribing to see.It came to me inner office
Here is the articel that was sent to me

Quote

By Robert Marritz
November 12, 2014 -- Oncor, which operates Texas’ largest power
line network, is preparing to bet that battery technology is ready for
wide-scale deployment across the grid. “In a move that stands to
radically shift the dynamics of the industry,” the Dallas Morning
News intoned Monday; Oncor will announce “it is prepared to invest
more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries
across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.”
Utility-scale batteries have been a Holy Grail within the power sector for years. Is this the “Eureka!”
moment for storage? Or is it just another notch in the long entrepreneurial belt of mover, shaker, and
risk taker supreme, Tesla Motors’ CEO Elon Musk, who will soon watch the Tesla et al. battery
“gigafactory” take shape in Nevada’s desert.
The price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense in most grid applications. But if
battery costs come down it could be a vastly different story, Oncor CEO Bob Shapard told the Dallas
News last week. “Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out,” he said. “We’re getting
indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018.”
But there is likely to be pushback from the state’s generating utilities, as a Greentechmedia blog
noted Monday.
Oncor, which commissioned a study by the Brattle Group, projects a potential $5.2 billion cost for full
statewide battery deployment, which could happen if other electricity delivery companies in the state
are as receptive to the cost-saving advantages of the technology as Oncor is.
“2018 is a suitable deadline for a process sure to include pushback from the state’s power generation
utilities,” Jeff St. John’s blog in Greentechmedia opined. The generators hold a privileged position not
open to distribution companies like Oncor in supplying energy and power to the state’s grid under
Texas’ competitive energy regime. “But it’s also indicative,” said the post, “of a bet that battery prices
will fall significantly over the next four years, ensuring the investment pay off in terms of fewer power
outages, lower grid-upgrade costs, and other benefits that will end up reducing customer utility bills.”
The Brattle Group study concluded that the Oncor project would not raise the company’s bills to
customers. In fact, revenues from battery storage space, along with a decrease in power prices and
transmission costs, should actually decrease prices slightly, on average, to Texas residential power
customers, Brattle estimates. The full extent of the cost of the batteries and of operating cost savings,
both difficult to estimate today, will tell the tale.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billeisele 130]

News intoned Monday; Oncor will announce “it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.”

Oncor, which commissioned a study by the Brattle Group, projects a potential $5.2 billion cost for full
statewide battery deployment, which could happen if other electricity delivery companies in the state
are as receptive to the cost-saving advantages of the technology as Oncor is.

***********************

I have no clue what "state wide" deployment means in terms of size but for comparison, a 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuke plant costs about $5 billion, that is highly variable based on the site and transmission needs

energy storage will be a game changer once it's economical

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rushmc 23]

billeisele

News intoned Monday; Oncor will announce “it is prepared to invest more than $2 billion to store electricity in thousands of batteries across North and West Texas beginning in 2018.”

Oncor, which commissioned a study by the Brattle Group, projects a potential $5.2 billion cost for full
statewide battery deployment, which could happen if other electricity delivery companies in the state
are as receptive to the cost-saving advantages of the technology as Oncor is.

***********************

I have no clue what "state wide" deployment means in terms of size but for comparison, a 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuke plant costs about $5 billion, that is highly variable based on the site and transmission needs

energy storage will be a game changer once it's economical

Yes
Storage was a puzzel piece that was missing
If economical, storage will change things we are not even thinking about yet

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billeisele 130]

and this might be it, or a big step in that direction

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2014/10/alevo-plans-quick-ramp-up-for-manufacturing-and.html

they have found a way to control the heat and it appears that cycling doesn't damage the battery

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rushmc 23]

billeisele

and this might be it, or a big step in that direction

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2014/10/alevo-plans-quick-ramp-up-for-manufacturing-and.html

they have found a way to control the heat and it appears that cycling doesn't damage the battery

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 220]

rushmc

***and this might be it, or a big step in that direction

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2014/10/alevo-plans-quick-ramp-up-for-manufacturing-and.html

they have found a way to control the heat and it appears that cycling doesn't damage the battery

Well said.

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

[rushmc 23]

turtlespeed

******and this might be it, or a big step in that direction

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2014/10/alevo-plans-quick-ramp-up-for-manufacturing-and.html

they have found a way to control the heat and it appears that cycling doesn't damage the battery

Well said.



I just made the link clicky

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skypuppy 1]

billeisele

***>base costs are in the $60 - $80 range

What does that mean?

ahhhh, the left coast Bill and the right coast Bill, hope you are well

there have been 3 cost studies, that I'm aware of, that have shown that the base cost for infrastructure, to be able to provide the power, are in this range

said another way, generation, transmission, substations, distribution, metering, and the equipment and systems to support that infrastructure are in the $60-$80 range per month

backing up a step (for others), net metering is often defined as, if the utility sells a kWh for 10 cents then if a customer sends a kWh to the utility they should be paid, or netted, 10 cents, admittedly that definition is not consistent and there are a few areas that tend to follow a method similar to what this post is about

the problem with this is that the base cost of infrastructure exists even if no energy (kWhs) is delivered, so when a customer is netted 10 cents they are being paid the full retail cost of the service, not for the value they are sending to the utility

in my area the actual cost, called avoided cost, (and it varies considerably) of energy is around 4 cents, that means that the difference of 6 cents (10-4=6) is the cost for everything excluding the energy

what is being heavily discussed and has been the subject of two court cases (so far), is net metering and the subsidy that occurs under the traditional definition

many believe that the payment to the customer should equal the value they are providing, in it's simplest form that is the avoided cost of energy

one way of doing this is to charge a solar customer a base rate of $70, plus the cost of energy for what they buy and subtract the avoided cost of energy for what they "sell" to the utility, it would be fair to use the value of the energy at the time of the sale

this allows the customer to contribute to the cost of the grid which they want to stay connected to and it eliminates the subsidy that non-solar customers are paying

here in the green province of ontario, my last power bill shows that over the last 30-day period I used 656 kwh, for an average cost of about 9.03 c/kwh (it's time of use pricing from 7.5 to 13.5 c/kw depending on time of day)

but then they tack on a delivery charge of 73.45. And then I pay regulatory charges of 4.33 and the debt retirement charge of 4.59. and of course the hst of 18.41.

So my $60 of electricity just cost me $160. raising my average cost to about 24.4 c/kwh. and I don't have electric heat... and the gov't itself is predicting electricity will rise by at least 40% over the next 5 years.

Welcome to the future.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[billvon 2,990]

>So my $60 of electricity just cost me $160. raising my average cost to about 24.4 c/kwh.

Down here the same power (just power, not any additional charges) would cost you 25.05 cents/kwhr. So you're not doing too bad. But yes, as people use more power in Canada, prices are likely to climb. (Power usage took a dip in 2007-2010 due to the recession but it's climbing again.)

[billeisele 130]

billvon

>So my $60 of electricity just cost me $160. raising my average cost to about 24.4 c/kwh.

Down here the same power (just power, not any additional charges) would cost you 25.05 cents/kwhr. So you're not doing too bad. But yes, as people use more power in Canada, prices are likely to climb. (Power usage took a dip in 2007-2010 due to the recession but it's climbing again.)

In South Carolina, residential energy on the highest rate is about 13.6 cents / kWh, plus the basic facilities charge of $10, so 656 kWh costs $100 plus local sales tax and franchise fees, the total would be about $113

Rates in the southeast US are in the 11-14 cents range

we're building 2 nuke plant and that has caused rates to rise ~22% over the past 6 years, projected to rise 12% more than decrease as fuel costs drop

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[BillyVance 34]

To no one in particular... I'm just gonna leave this here...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

Hi rush,

Quote

Two of the more interesting ones

And a 3rd one from today's edition of THE OREGONIAN newspaper:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/11/how_wind_power_helps_rural_ore.html#incart_river

You will probably disregard it but it is an interesting perspective IMO.

Jerry Baumchen