Don Trump Tilts at Windmills: Rescinds All Offshore Wind Energy Areas in the US; current leases up for review

[Nithavela]

It's not obvious? If the object is the cheapest solution, shivering in the dark is the cheapest of all. If the object is a reliable source of power, you have to do certain things., based on the power source, to provide. it. That's more expensive that shivering in the dark, but much more comfortable. Wind and solar, especially if you're going to have some sort of power storage, isn't going to be the cheapest option. Building wind and solar without storage is less expensive than building it with storage, but by it's very nature it's an unreliable power source.

Whether anyone believes me on this or not, it doesn't change what is.

Now, if the criteria is non-CO2 electricity production, the most reliable is hydro, nuclear, and geothermal. Wind and solar are less reliable, again based on the nature of the power source. So is tidal energy. If you want to use that to replace coal and natural gas generation, you're going to have to have that energy storage. Otherwise, you're going to have to burn something to take up the slack when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

So you're saying that we should choose nuclear power because it might not be cheaper than many alternatives, but since the cheapest option would be to not use any electricity at all, cost should not be a factor?

Yeah, no, that makes no sense. Of course cost is a factor.

 

[Tuur]

So you're saying that we should choose nuclear power because it might not be cheaper than many alternatives, but since the cheapest option would be to not use any electricity at all, cost should not be a factor?

Yeah, no, that makes no sense. Of course cost is a factor.

Then shiver in the dark. That's the cheapest option of them all.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Wind and solar, especially if you're going to have some sort of power storage, isn't going to be the cheapest option. Building wind and solar without storage is less expensive than building it with storage, but by it's very nature it's an unreliable power source.

The best way to improve the availibility of wind power is to build an interconnected grid over large distances, the wind always blow somewhere (I think on average they produce power 80% of the time, with a capacity factor slightly below 40%). Sure you'll have to pay for the overcapacity needed and the investments in the infrastructure, but it also creates a more robust system. Shouldn't this be possible along the coasts of the US, where the population density is rather high? Off-shore wind parks have even better numbers.

 

[Nithavela]

Then shiver in the dark. That's the cheapest option of them all.

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it more sensible. But I guess you really must believe you are making a valid point.

 

[Tuur]

The best way to improve the availibility of wind power is to build an interconnected grid over large distances, the wind always blow somewhere (I think on average they produce power 80% of the time, with a capacity factor slightly below 40%). Sure you'll have to pay for the overcapacity needed and the investments in the infrastructure, but it also creates a more robust system. Shouldn't this be possible along the coasts of the US, where the population density is rather high? Off-shore wind parks have even better numbers.

Without superconductors, it's not that easy. Seriously. Have heard of nitrogen cooled superconductors in short runs in some substations, but have never seen it. Conventional conductors has line losses due to reactance and resistance inherent in the cable. There's HVDC which I don't think has the reactance component but still has resistance. The whole point to bumping up transmission voltages so high is to drop the line amps and the corresponding line losses, and even then it's more limited that some think. I think the longest in the US is a HVDC line that's a few hundred miles in length. That sounds long, but the hot summer day I described when there was no surplus electricity to be had covered a region longer and wider than that. You can find lists of long AC transmission lines, but those are usually loop instead of radial feed, so it's not necessarily the distance from Point A to Point B. With HVDC, my understanding is that it is Pont A to Point B.

Note that the hot summer day I mentioned was region-wide, so you can have entire regions affected by conditions that limit wind and solar production. Now, if you could move electricity from one side of the US to another, you could do what you describe, but right now it's too limited.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Without superconductors, it's not that easy. Seriously. Have heard of nitrogen cooled superconductors in short runs in some substations, but have never seen it. Conventional conductors has line losses due to reactance and resistance inherent in the cable.

The single longest AC transmission line in Sweden is more than 600 miles long (1000 km). Yes that is from point A to point B. It only takes about us half the way from the producers in the north to the consumers in the south, it was built in 1952, so it is probably easier today. So, it both possible and needed to chain them together. Yes, you put in capacitor banks to balance away the reactive losses, but you also arrange the leads to minimize the losses.

There's HVDC which I don't think has the reactance component but still has resistance. The whole point to bumping up transmission voltages so high is to drop the line amps and the corresponding line losses, and even then it's more limited that some think. I think the longest in the US is a HVDC line that's a few hundred miles in length.

We have a lot HVDC connections at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. I think Norway have a subsea one all the way to the Netherlands.

That sounds long, but the hot summer day I described when there was no surplus electricity to be had covered a region longer and wider than that. You can find lists of long AC transmission lines, but those are usually loop instead of radial feed, so it's not necessarily the distance from Point A to Point B. With HVDC, my understanding is that it is Pont A to Point B.

Note that the hot summer day I mentioned was region-wide, so you can have entire regions affected by conditions that limit wind and solar production. Now, if you could move electricity from one side of the US to another, you could do what you describe, but right now it's too limited.

Nowadays, Sweden produce 20-25% through wind power and it hasn't created an unstable grid. There's no conflict in diversifying the producer part of the equation, on the days it is windy you save on fuel and coal and hydropower and you crank them up if there's no wind. Half the cost of coal and oil power is the fuel. Nuclear chugs along at the same pace all the time.

This is mostly a question of political will, the business case for renewables have been quite good for some time from understanding. I'm thinking about LCOE+

 

[Tuur]

This is mostly a question of political will, the business case for renewables have been quite good for some time from understanding. I'm thinking about LCOE+

You know the old real estate mantra "Location, location, location?" Same thing holds for renewables. Wind doesn't work everywhere and it's harder to get it from where it does than to where it doesn't isn't as easy as some think. What you call "political will" I call a Procrustean bed where people who fit on it just fine wonder why everyone else is screaming.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

You know the old real estate mantra "Location, location, location?" Same thing holds for renewables. Wind doesn't work everywhere and it's harder to get it from where it does than to where it doesn't isn't as easy as some think. What you call "political will" I call a Procrustean bed where people who fit on it just fine wonder why everyone else is screaming.

Procrustean bed, a new word to me, I had to Google it Who has forced anyone to do anything? Is there something wrong with the business case for renewables? I'm not saying it is the best solution everywhere, but neither are gas, coal or nuclear powered solutions.

 

[Tuur]

Procrustean bed, a new word to me, I had to Google it Who has forced anyone to do anything? Is there something wrong with the business case for renewables? I'm not saying it is the best solution everywhere, but neither are gas, coal or nuclear powered solutions.

Who's forcing renewables? Those who demand decommissioning existing generation without sufficient reliable generation in place first. Say "nuclear" and they get their knickers in a twist. Say you need to build energy storage where they actually can replace existing generation, and they say all you need is to build more renewables. Point out the expense and they repeat "renewables are cheaper" and won't listen to anything different.

That's a huge reason I'm looking at going off-grid. I'm working on the premise that we will get to the point where those think renewables without energy storage will supply all our needs will win out. If they want to sit in the cold dark, that's their choice. Me, I prefer something better. If I do this, it will cost, but at least I won't be sitting in the dark.

 

[mark46]

Who's forcing renewables? Those who demand decommissioning existing generation without sufficient reliable generation in place first. Say "nuclear" and they get their knickers in a twist. Say you need to build energy storage where they actually can replace existing generation, and they say all you need is to build more renewables. Point out the expense and they repeat "renewables are cheaper" and won't listen to anything different.

That's a huge reason I'm looking at going off-grid. I'm working on the premise that we will get to the point where those think renewables without energy storage will supply all our needs will win out. If they want to sit in the cold dark, that's their choice. Me, I prefer something better. If I do this, it will cost, but at least I won't be sitting in the dark.

I did financial studies for utilities for 30 years. I apologize to some posters. Much of the below has been posted. Personally, I do NOT expect posters to search the threads. Feel free to skip and move on.
===
SOME THOUGHTS
=========
1) OF COURSE it is nuts to decommission working plants while not having economic substitutes.
2) Analysis of choice need to include all the costs of generation and delivery including pollution/climate, transmission and distribution systems.
3) Small nuclear plants are the viable low carbon alternatives. [BTW, many Sierra club members used to support this, but no more].
4) Wind and solar are already cheaper than oil and coal. They will soon pass natural gas. And, NO, they are not yet reliable for baseload. Nuclear and natural gas are better. Yes, the cost of storage needs to br included if you want to use wind and solar for baseload.
5) Natural gas will be needed for the foreseeable future.
6) Our needs for electricity will greatly increase in the next couple of decades to support AI and the next decade need for de-salinization plants.
7) Off-grid plants need to be built to serve AI and other data centers. They need to be greatly de-regulated as long as they do not connect to the grid.