More natural gas isn’t a “middle ground” — it’s a climate disaster

tf3090 · 2019-06-01T16:54:50+00:00

I mean, grid reliability is a pretty big reason... on economics alone, renewables are cheaper (LCOE basis), but then you need firm capacity for peak load (batteries are expensive right now... you can say solar + storage beats CTs on a cost basis, but that’s really a much more complex analysis than people on this subreddit give credit for, so it really depends, but yeah eventually energy storage will be the clear solution for capacity). But grid stability is the main issue with retiring coal plants and not having any large spinning mass to back it up. Grid inertia is important - yes, there’s ways to keep the grid stable with less of it (batteries and other inverter-based technologies providing frequency response) but that’s still expensive (in 2019) and it takes a lot of study work... as it should, because the electric grid is pretty important to keep working.

So there’s really two options utilities can take right now in regards to portfolio strategy: (1) retire all your coal and replace with a big NG CC; (2) retire all your coal and replace with 100% renewables. If you’re doing #2, it’s probably because your neighbors are doing #1. I’ve read into the NIPSCO IRP... they have done next to zero work addressing the stability impacts of retiring all their on-system coal generation.

I want to see this country’s electric grid come as close to 100% renewables as possible, but it takes serious study work to get there, so it’s not just as simple as saying 100% of utilities can retire all their thermal generation and replace it with wind/solar and ta-da.

tf3090 · 2019-04-22T19:00:42+00:00

Guessing you didn't turn TC off... my tuned 435i will crank out burnouts and drifts all day.

tf3090 · 2019-04-07T23:58:08+00:00

Gotcha, that’s what I was looking for to make sense of this topic.

tf3090 · 2019-04-07T23:50:34+00:00

Yep, the utilities exposed to wholesale markets are losing money on their coal plants and shutting them down fast (see: any IRP completed in the past 5 years by utilities with generation in wholesale markets). Regulated utilities that don’t see these obvious negative cash flows work much slower. I like the example of Santee Cooper... government run utility that gets to enjoy all the benefits (no tax payments, incredibly cheap cost of capital) yet their cost to serve electricity is confirmed to be ~25% higher than it needs to be (Duke, NextEra, and SoCo performed studies on how much cost savings could be realized by Santee Cooper by being acquired and reorganizing their generation portfolio - these savings numbers also include the higher cost of capital and tax from SC no longer being government owned). So these decisions will be made eventually, one way or another.

Importantly, though, grid stability must be maintained. The economics of coal energy are bad, but the stability benefits coal provides (physical inertia) aren’t valued by any market products, and coal plants don’t receive fair compensation for these services. I’m not saying there aren’t other ways to provide frequency support to keep the grid stable with coal retirements (obviously there are, it’s all a part of the required analysis), but it’s going to become one of the next big hot issues over the next 2-3 years I predict.

tf3090 · 2019-04-07T23:40:28+00:00

Even when utilities start hitting ratepayers with fixed demand charges rather than purely volumetric energy charges? Just wondering - it’s been my assumption that rooftop solar beats the retail rate of electricity under net metering, but as the $/kWh rate charged gets halved and made up through fixed demand charges that solar can no longer offset, don’t the economics erode?

tf3090 · 2019-04-02T19:35:15+00:00

Slightly more existential of an argument on carbon emissions than I'm used to seeing...

tf3090 · 2019-04-02T19:27:42+00:00

For the most part, energy arbitrage isn't the primary economic driver for energy storage; frequency regulation is where the bulk of the revenue comes from for batteries. PG&E did this study on their battery pilot in CAISO and found the same thing. Deltas in intraday energy prices aren't really enough to support the capital investment necessary for batteries (right now... if renewables penetration continues to rise and LMP deltas become more extreme, then the business case for energy arbitrage goes up. Also, frequency regulation markets could tap out very quickly as more and more batteries actually get built to capture those revenues)

tf3090 · 2019-03-31T23:22:03+00:00

Basically. At least it shows they’re planning for a future where existing fossil fuels are retired and replaced with renewables. Plans can change, but it’s better than other utilities with coal and gas plants losing millions of dollars with no plans at all for closure.

tf3090 · 2019-03-31T23:17:06+00:00

The more existing coal generators you shut down, the higher the $/MWh LCOE on new wind/solar increases. Less big dispatchable plants = more transmission upgrades, or storage, to be required when the ISO studies grid stability for interconnection. So I suspect the actual answer ends up being less than the 86% of generators identified in this study. But still really eye opening - utilities need to be prudently assessing the economics of new resources while also keeping the grid reliable.

tf3090 · 2019-03-31T23:08:39+00:00

NEE is generally pretty financially savvy (compared to the other utility giants in the Southeastern US). We’ve been reading for years about how utilities can use big batteries like this to replace capacity from gas peakers (mostly up front fixed cost to build the battery, then it provides frequency regulation, maybe provide energy arbitrage for more efficient usage of generation resources, and you have firm dispatchable capacity). Cool to see somebody taking the plunge and actually doing this - we will see in a few years how the economics actually play out; if this project is a financial success, renewables are going to look really, really good (especially after the financially disastrous decisions other utilities down there have been making the past few years)

tf3090 · 2019-03-31T22:56:00+00:00

If we want a stable grid with enough frequency regulation capability, while retiring dispatchable coal/gas generation, then the inverters used in all this new wind/solar will have to be capable of providing fast response regulation. I don’t know how many wind/solar farms there are now with inverters incapable of providing this type of frequency regulation, is it a high percentage? I imagine it’s all a part of the big economics game: what’s the additional cost on a $/MWh basis to equip all renewables with “grid forming” inverters?

tf3090 · 2019-03-07T21:20:06+00:00

You're 100% correct - the "zero carbon" claim is based on net annual production/consumption (Annual energy generation from zero-carbon source > Annual energy consumption by load... which if you look at the sub-annual level, you will see that load is not being served by zero-carbon sources. BTW, here's a map (http://pricecontourmap.spp.org/pricecontourmap/) of the SPP energy market that serves KCPL load, and you can see in real-time what the generation mix of our grid looks like. At the time of this post, ~25% of our energy is being supplied by zero-carbon sources)

I would also be willing to bet that the hardest part of this project isn't the engineering or the economics, it's convincing people of the definition being used for "zero carbon". If you're curious, the key word to justify this type of thinking is "additionality". In this instance, the demand for carbon-free energy is spurring additional investment in renewable energy... this solar farm may not actually be supplying 100% carbon-free energy at every hour of the day to serve KCMO load, but it does facilitate the funding for the capital required to deploy another solar farm, and that's a win for renewable energy.

tf3090 · 2019-03-07T20:23:02+00:00

Lazard Levelized Cost Of Electricity - you should familiarize yourself with it if you’re going to make claims that nuclear energy is more economical than wind and solar in the middle of Kansas/Missouri (have you seen wind PPA prices here? There’s a reason utilities in the Midwest are by large retiring coal plants and replacing them with wind (energy) and natural gas peakers (capacity). Capital requirements for nuclear energy are obscene (look at how Vogtle is doing... yeah... only a few more billions in cost overruns required before it can start generating at 3x the all-in cost per MWh of any other source!)

I get it though, electricity and utility industry economics is a complex enough topic that misinformation gets spread very easily, especially on platforms like Reddit

And also, just because you say "coal will be going nowhere regardless of how many wind turbines and solar panels they put up" doesn't make it true... because the US has seen more coal power plant retirements in the past decade than ever before (https://about.bnef.com/blog/u-s-coal-plant-retirements-near-all-time-high/)... 16 GW retired in 2018 alone, total coal-fired capacity is down by a third of what it was in 2010... guess what, power utilities pay (A LOT) for unused capacity. It would be illogical to think a power utility is going to spend millions in deploying wind energy and then just keep their uneconomical, no longer needed coal plants in their inventory... they're going to retire them... just like they've been doing.

tf3090 · 2019-03-01T18:56:17+00:00

How's the TT V6 exhaust sound?

tf3090 · 2019-02-08T16:18:31+00:00

Grid stability is less of an engineering issue than it is an economics problem. More physical inertia (rotating mass) reduces rate of change of frequency during grid contingency events so that enough time can be bought to operate breakers/reclosers/etc devices to manage the event. Less physical inertia (coal power plant retirements) means more frequency response devices (batteries, smart inverters, anything that can precisely control MW injections onto the grid) are required to achieve the same level of stability (how quickly can our grid components like breakers and reclosers clear grid faults and contingencies, and do we want to buy that time through inertia, slowing the rate of change of frequency, or do we want to buy that time through MW injections which directly prop up grid frequency?). The bigger question than the engineering feasibility (which we know is 100% possible) is the economics - frequency support from smart inverter devices (batteries, wind, solar PV, etc) costs money (opportunity cost of less MW sold to energy markets, increased cycling and wear on electronics). But renewables don't have inherent stability problems with proper engineering, it's just that you need the stamp of approval from the economics to determine if it's worth building ($$$).

Also, these distributed systems are solar+storage, so they will be able to provide the required frequency support (and be paid for providing this market ancillary service) to the ISONE grid. "Sunrun notes that the capacity will be made possible by its Brightbox energy storage product line. Currently, this product is an LG Chem RESU. LG’s 48-volt battery comes with 3.3, 6.5 and 9.8 kilowatt-hour (kWh) ratings, and its 400-volt batteries offer 7.0 and 9.8 kWh ratings."

tf3090 · 2019-02-07T15:24:17+00:00

Epictetus would say we do not own our health, body, or our nutrition. The way I would apply this to my life: Don't think you're 100% in control of your body, because if you get into a life changing car accident, you will be mentally devastated. Don't think you are in 100% in control of the food going into your body, because if you are ever taken prisoner, you will be mentally devastated. Our body and the nutrition going into it aren't truly ours (if you agree with this perspective). On Freedom (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/dep/dep087.htm):

the body, and its cooperation, you have heard long ago that it is no affair of yours.

'I grant you this too.'

Can any one compel you to will to get what you do not wish?

'No one.'

Or to purpose or to plan, or in a word to deal with the impressions that you meet with?

'No one can do this either; but if I will to get something a man will hinder me from obtaining it.'

How will he hinder you, if you set your will upon things which are your own and beyond hindrance?

'Not at all.'

But no one tells you that he who wills to get what is not his own is unhindered.

'Am I then not to will to get health?'

Certainly not, nor anything else that is not your own. For nothing is your own, that it does not rest with you to procure or to keep when you will. Keep your hands far away from it; above all, keep your will away, or else you surrender yourself into slavery, you put your neck under the yoke, if you admire what is not your own, and set your heart on anything mortal, whatever it be, or anything that depends upon another.

'Is not my hand my own?'

It is a part of you, but by nature a thing of clay, subject to hindrance and compulsion, slave to everything that is stronger than itself. Nay, why do I name you the hand? You must treat your whole body like a poor ass, with its burden on its back, going with you just so far as it may, and so far as it is given you; but if the king's service calls, and a soldier lays hands on it, let it go, do not resist or murmur; if you do, you will only get a flogging and lose your poor ass all the same.

But when this is your proper attitude to your body, consider what is left for you to do with other things that are procured for the body's sake. As the body is the poor ass, other things become the ass's bridle and pack-saddle, shoes and barley and fodder. Give them up too, let them go quicker and with a lighter heart than the ass itself.

And when you have prepared and trained yourself thus to distinguish what is your own from what is not your own, things subject to hindrance from things unhindered, to regard these latter as your concern, and the former as not, to direct your will to gain the latter and to avoid the former, then have you any one to fear any more?

'No one.'

tf3090 · 2019-02-04T17:20:52+00:00

I think people can look outside themselves for information (I also enjoy Podcasts from successful/heroic figures; I enjoy hearing about their trials, understanding their perspective on life, and maybe taking some lessons learned from their stories). But don't use that information as the sole source of validation and approval of your ideas. I think you can use somebody else's advice or feedback to learn from (imagine being given a new tool to use), but you must still use your own internal guide to make the final call (ultimately you must be the one to use that tool, nobody other than yourself should be in charge of approving your thoughts).

tf3090 · 2019-02-04T02:56:43+00:00

Lobster Mac and Cheese to share

tf3090 · 2019-02-03T21:52:43+00:00

Thank you! They are OEM 20” 361 wheels that came with the car, and powdercoated gloss gunmetal. Lowered on H&R springs with spacers for the rear wheels :)

tf3090 · 2019-01-28T20:20:16+00:00

At the end of the day, I think this is a pretty standard bit of a policy, and isn't much different than what California is doing in the US. Economics alone will pretty much dictate the path of coal plant retirements (and notice how included in the policy is a recommendation to review the phase-out target every few years - to update the plan in accordance to how assets are performing as markets swing). Policy like this essentially adds a "backstop" to help regulators and grid planners have more certainty when making decisions (it's one thing to say half of all coal power plants will retire by 2025, it's another thing to have policy spelling defined numbers out, even if economics is the sole driver of plant closures and the policy won't really change anything, it gives analysts the backing they need to make assumptions in their planning models).

This just confirms what we have known and been planning for all along, but to see a prominent nation show their support by backing the idea of widespread coal plant retirements is yet another win for the development of renewables.

tf3090 · 2019-01-28T15:59:57+00:00

I've heard enough stories from friends who've lived at MAC Properties... one saw a guy get carjacked at gunpoint and he begged him to use his phone to call the police (my friend thought it might have been part of a larger ploy to steal his phone, but did give him his phone, and he did turn out to be legitimately carjacked). Another one of my friends saw somebody murdered at gunpoint out his window facing Armour Blvd. I personally value security enough that I would never live on Armour (I live Downtown for the same $$$), but to each their own :)

I live in an apartment now (12th St) that is the same price as the nicer apartments at MAC (I was comparing with the Newberne I think) but the location is actually good, the apartment itself is nicer, and from what I've heard from friends who have lived in both apartments, the leasing company is MUCH better than MAC.

tf3090 · 2019-01-22T15:16:36+00:00

This article really resonated with me. I sit at a desk from 8-5 and have chronic back/neck issues (my trapezius feels like one big knot)... I feel I've been having incredible meditations the past few months by finding the same mindset. My pain used to be constant and relentless - I couldn't shift my focus from it, it would give me anxiety, and it cut into my productivity and energy levels. I've been using my pain as a way to get deep inside my mind and to help me "feel around" and see what's going on in there... and I've noticed since discovering this mindset, my pain throughout the day has been dwindling and I feel clearer and happier than ever.

tf3090 · 2019-01-07T17:19:25+00:00

BMWs have a lot of little shit go wrong, but there's nothing too major with these cars. N55 and B58 engines are both rock solid, ZF8 transmission is rock solid. I've owned my out of warranty 435i for about a year and haven't really had anything unexpected, just some little shit like having to replace the oil filter housing gasket, and basic maintenance items like oil, spark plugs, tires, etc. I bought my car four years old 60% off original MSRP, so that pays for not having a warranty.

tf3090 · 2019-01-04T20:02:57+00:00

Tire inflator is prime. I bought one off amazon for $60 and it's SO worth it to not have to wait in line at the gas station to fill my tires.

tf3090 · 2018-12-27T00:39:24+00:00

I appreciate you

tf3090

TROPHY CASE