If the looming spectre of rising electricity prices due to CARB’s upcoming “cap and trade” isn’t enough, now the Department of Water resources has opted to be less efficient by giving low cost electricity the boot. Somebody else will buy it, so there’s no net savings other than banking “feel good” capital.
From the green section of the Chico News and Review:
Coal-fired plant gets the boot
Department of Water Resources will not renew lease with Nevada plant
California’s Department of Water Resources will not renew a lease with the coal-burning Reid Gardner Power Station in Moapa Valley, Nev., as part of a recently released climate action plan.
The department aims to cut carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and the Reid Gardner plant, which has served the State Water Project (the water system that diverts water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta), accounts for one-fourth of DWR’s total emissions, according to The Sacramento Bee. Water Resources will purchase more energy from renewable energy sources, the California Independent System Operator and Lodi Energy Center, a natural gas plant beginning operations this summer.
Reid Gardner had accounted for about 10 to 15 percent of DWR’s energy for the past 30 years. The contract with the company expires in 2013.
Is there intelligent life in Sacramento ????
None. California is in the dumper. I’m trying to figure where to escape to….any suggestions re low taxes, low energy costs, fewer meddling progs?
“Somebody else will buy it, so there’s no net savings other than banking “feel good” capital.”
I think the simple goal here is to make water more expensive so we use less of it.
For some reason, water use has been getting more and more attention, not sure if its because it requires energy to move it, because we have an “unfair” amount of water here in the USA, or because they want us to conserve water (by putting a price on it) and then ship some of our water overseas in those Spragg bags…
Conversion efficiency. At best, only 45% of the heat value is converted to electricity. Now you’re up to $0.0151.
Transmission efficiency. Approximately 50% of the power is dissipated in the transmission lines. Now you’re up to $0.0302.
Cost of capital. A rule of thumb is that each KWh of capacity costs $1 to install. With interest costs I believe you’re around $0.05 per KWh over the life of the plant. Now you’re up to $0.0802 per KWh and we haven’t included any non-fuel operating costs.
Not being in the power industry myself, I’m sure there are other costs I haven’t even thought of.
Now, $0.20 – $0.40 is a little over the top, but $0.0068 is just not realistic.
Idiots have invaded and taken over CA. Too bad.
Re: D. J. Hawkins says:
June 22, 2012 at 9:54 am
“Conversion efficiency. At best, only 45% of the heat value is converted to electricity. Now you’re up to $0.0151.”
In fact, the current breed of CCGT plants run approximately 60% thermal efficiency. (General Electric)
“Transmission efficiency. Approximately 50% of the power is dissipated in the transmission lines. Now you’re up to $0.0302.”
In fact, overall transmission efficiency in the U.S. ranges between 93% and 94%. Certain high voltage links can run 98% efficiency. (Wikipedia)
“Cost of capital. A rule of thumb is that each KWh of capacity costs $1 to install. With interest costs I believe you’re around $0.05 per KWh over the life of the plant. Now you’re up to $0.0802 per KWh and we haven’t included any non-fuel operating costs.”
First of all, capacity is measured in Kw; not Kwh. In fact, the capital component of the cheapest (overall) power source know to man, CCGT, runs about $600 per installed Kw of average useable output capacity. These plants also run capacity factors in the high 90% whereas solar is lucky get much north of 20%. (General Electric; Solar industry’s self-reported operating records)
In addition to gagging on non-nonsensical calculations purporting to yield cost per Kwh results, it never fails to astound me how some folks will just pull numbers out of thin air to support their arguments.
Water Resources: no more electricity from coal sourced in Nevada: Nevada will be using this surplus to service newly arrived businesses escaping from California.
French nuke energy sells at 0.045 euro to the consumer. Which would be something like 0.05 cents. The greens hate that with a vengeance because they can’t slap Carbon tax on it. So now they want all nukes to be shut down so we also can pay upwards of 27 cents like the Germans or 45 cents like the Danish.
They are seriously deranged.
oops make that 5 cents. 0.05 dollar
Claude Harvey: In addition to gagging on non-nonsensical calculations purporting to yield cost per Kwh results, it never fails to astound me how some folks will just pull numbers out of thin air to support their arguments.
Take it up with the utilities, because they bill per kwh. When the cost of solar falls below what the utilities bill, more and more people will install solar.
If the green graph at the top is accurate, lots of people will be better off 5 years from now, and thereafter, if they install rooftop PV panels now. To go for PV or not go for PV — it’s a calculated risk, since the future is not known. Where I live, most people will be money ahead soon if they install PV panels now. These calculations are site and use dependent.
Another PV technology update:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/31/sharp-hits-concentrator-solar-cell-efficiency-record-43-5/
Multiple companies now have concentrated photo voltaic at 40+ % efficiency. If they can cheaply mass-produce the components and the assemblies in panels, that will make a big difference to this discussion.
Stephen Richards: You need to look closer at PV output. It is as useless as wind mills. It varies too much, destabilizes the grid, is very inefficient ~~ 18 – 20%, needs a lot of land and a lot of maintenance.
You need to look at the specifics of location and use. The site I posted is in the arid farming county of Imperial Valley, CA. They have 350 or so sunny days per year, and the major uses of electricity are pumping water and air conditioning, both of which are concentrated in the daytime.
You also need to look at alternatives: if the figures are correct, that will be the cheapest electricity available in Imperial Valley. Everything needs maintenance — a 200 MW coal or gas power plant has a full time staff. My calculations to date have ignored the maintenance costs of PV, but as the costs go down and more panels are installed, it will be necessary to take those costs into account for a fair comparison. In the cost figures for new combined-cycle gas power plants (that I have seen), those maintenance costs are also omitted.
Petrossa says:
June 22, 2012 at 12:21 pm
French nuke energy sells at 0.045 euro to the consumer. Which would be something like 0.05 cents. The greens hate that with a vengeance because they can’t slap Carbon tax on it. So now they want all nukes to be shut down so we also can pay upwards of 27 cents like the Germans or 45 cents like the Danish.
I quoted the french figures further back. My figures were from my bill and from the beginning of 2011. Your figures are not correct. The greenie beenies have ask for the closure of up to 18 nuclear centrals but up to now Hollande has agree to one. Unfortunately for Hollande each closure costs an average of 500 jobs and his main political support comes from the ‘ouvriers ‘ many of whom work in the centrals of those ares where the cantrals are placed.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm
That’s absolute rubbish. Money can be made from PV only through feed-in tarifs. It is useless for powering anything but the transistor radio. Feed-in tarifs are being reduced or eliminated all across europe.
As I have said, a new PV technology will be needed before it can supplant any other form of power supply.
Claude Harvey: In that great day when we are “all solar” you bill would be 47.2-cents per Kwh (using the Spanish “starve the plant operator” rate) and that figure does not include the cost of conventional backup power you would need if you expect the lights to come on “when the sun don’t shine).
PV prices are falling. If you can get electricity in the day time during peak demand for $0.028/kwh then good for you. That is very rare in the US, not just in California.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Unfortunately, most of the world and most of the power do not live in deserts. Where I live we have an average (and remember the problems with that) 2500 hrs of sun each year. I was preparing to install PV on my roof (184 m²) which would have cost €10.000 for the 3,2Kw. All the info I received from the experts said that I could not power the house in any way shape of form from the PV even if I covered the whole roof. €10.000 would power my house, including heating, for 5 years. By which time 5% of the panels would be useless, after 10 years 10%, after 20 years 20%.
ZZMike says June 21, 2012 at 6:39 pm
The California environmental lobby – among others – is working very hard to see that the San Onofre nuclear reactors are not turned on again. Current plans are to restart no earlier than August. If this turns out to be a hot summer, we could see the dreaded rolling blackouts.
—————————————————————-
ZZM: There are actual technical problems with the San Onofre plants. The heat exchangers in the boilers have tubes that are vibrating, rubbing, and wearing through. It’s an uncommon design that the manufacturer (Mitsubishi) and the plant owner are working to resolve. Typically, leaking tubes are plugged and the exchanger is put back into service, but there are too many bad ones in this situation. The NRC has weighed in on this:
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/06/20/nrc_3a00_-faulty-steam-generator-testing_2c00_-design-to-blame-for-songs-problems-062002.aspx
The good news is the the Japanese are (finally!) starting to turn their nukes back on.
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/06/18/first-post_2d00_fukushima-reactor-restart-approved-in-japan-061802.aspx
Speaking of ill winds, if/when the People’s Republic of California goes down the tubes, we can at least serve as a warning to the other states.
Claude Harvey says: June 22, 2012 at 11:45 am
In fact, overall transmission efficiency in the U.S. ranges between 93% and 94%. Certain high voltage links can run 98% efficiency. (Wikipedia)
——————————————————
Another excellent reason to not use Wikipedia. The transmission lines tabulated by themselves may have this efficiency, but the lines have transformers. Each transformer adds 1% to 2% loss, and there are typically 3 or 4 transformers between the generating station and the end user.
About a year ago I asked the Energy Information Agency (via email) what are typical transmission losses and got the response: “We don’t keep track of that”
Kalifornia is actually following a cosmological pattern—of spinning off at an accelerating rate. Watch out because this will be labeled stimulus to pay for this motion some day.
1. Your point is granted, but only for CCGT plants. Most electricity in the United States is generated by coal, for which my efficiency limit is correct. Nippy was asking about current costs, not what some future plant might deliver. It’ll be a long time a comin’, if ever, before the aggregate baseload efficiency of U.S. power generation gets anywhere near 60%.
2. Regarding transmission efficiency, I must have gotten a bum answer years ago and never looked back. Just goes to show that it isn’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble, but what you know that ain’t so that trips you up.
3. Regarding capacity; really??? Technically you’re right, but a simply observation and eye-wink emoticon would have been sufficient, don’t you think? And that still puts your beloved CCGT plant at $0.60 per KW installed capacity. And, it’s only that good because of it’s efficiency. Coal plant? Now we’re back to about $1.00 per KW. Plus, why are you injecting solar into the discussion? Very confusing.
4. Non-sensical calculations? OK, for currently installed capacity – efficiency: same; transmission: no loss, to a first approximation; capital costs: same. You got back a penny and a half. Now costs (less fuel, wages, maintenance, etc) are down to $0.065 vs. $0.08. Your CCGT plant using similar assumptions is $0.04, rounded to the nearest penny.
The differences among $0.04, $0.065, and $0.08 are trivial compared to Nippy’s $0.0068.
Please feel free to troll elswhere.
DaninCA and Claude,
PG&E uses an AVERAGE line loss of 9% for planning purposes. Obviously, the higher the temperature and the longer the transmission and distribution lines are the higher this value will be. SCE average line loss value is a tad less then PG&E’s. I have a reference to this value somewhere on my PC….
Actually, I take back the generous allowance on capital cost for the CCGT plant. See here:
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/59747/ge-flexefficiency-50-ccgt-facilities-and-wind-turbine-facilities
where the 510 MW plant cost is $637,000,000 or $1,240. Likewise, in my posts above, per KW installed conventional coal plant would be $1,000 not $1. Add $0.02 back to the cost of CCGT, bringing it up to $0.06 from $0.04.
Stephen Richards: Unfortunately, most of the world and most of the power do not live in deserts.
So what? Costs of electricity from solar are declining, and costs of electricity from other sources are projected to rise (I was wondering, do you dispute the message of the graph, either generally or its claimed accuracy?). Most of the electricity infrastructure of the future is not going to be built all at once in one place with one technology. Where PV panels are a good deal, as they are in some places (as I mentioned), they will be installed. All or almost all of my writing is about particular technologies (mass produced components or laboratory innovations) of recent months, in particular places for particular purposes. Where I live, roof-mounted PV panels are now the cheapest source of electricity for summer A/C and winter heat pumps. This doesn’t affect me because I don’t use A/C.
Much of the world’s population have no electricity at all. For them, PV power is a good improvement over what they have, and fossil fuel delivery is less reliable than sunshine. PV panels are easier to maintain than gas turbines and diesel engines.
Most people don’t live where the oil and gas are, either; that also matters little. What matters is not the distance, but the cost and reliability of delivery, and in some places of the world those factors, along with the declining cost of PV panels, are beginning to make PV panels an attractive alternative.
Here is a school in Arizona. If prices of electricity increase enough, this will be a big savings for the rate payers and school district.
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/TVUSD_Awards_SOLON_Solar_Contract_999.html
Right now it is a calculated risk, because we do not know the future. In that location, for that purpose, I would bet that this is a good investment, though it may not be obvious for a decade or so. With their expanding population and hence continuing construction of new schools, I would expect Arizonans to explore the economics of putting PV panels on the schools from the start.
@inedible hyperbowl:
There was a ‘coal crisis’ in the UK in something like th early 1800s and there was a wood crisis in the USA when we chopped down all the Eastern forests. Oil came along and all was well again…
Unfortunately the present Green Insanity causes “coal crisis” as a search term to find all sorts of cruft that has nothing to do with the real coal crisis of old… so no linky link…
@george:
Per the packages on my CFL and LED bulbs the total lumens per Watt are not all that different. Don’t know what the theory says, but do know what the packaging says showed up at the UL…
Utiliitech Pro LED 13.5 Watts 800 Lumens
ULA A19 Bulb Shape CFL 15 Watts 800 Lumens
(not the most efficient but close at hand)
I’ve got some other CFLs that are a tiny bit more efficient (14 W IIRC) as these have a plastic bulb shaped shell that takes some of the light…
The ballasts tend to be “the issue” for LED lights. The LED is very efficient, but the total device is not dramatically better than a CFL. Yes, 1.5 Watts out of 15 W is 10%, but in absolute terms, 1.5 Watts is just nothing…
BTW, when I’ve “fat fingered something” and gone to a surprise screen and “lost it all”, often I can just hit the “back” button in the browser and it reloads the edit screen WITH my typing… Livesaver at times…
@Bob Diaz:
Not that I’ve found…
@Neill:
I’ve been surveying areas for a while now. Texas, Florida, Wyoming, and there’s this nice little valley in Tenn. that the tornadoes are lifted over and gets nice weather. Shows up on any decent weather map as a hole in the cloud / storm tracks.
For Texas, draw a line from San Antone up to just North of Dallas. Hill country too.
For Florida, about a 30 mile radius around Orlando (substantially reduced hurricane landings)
Oh, and you can live in Washington on the Vancouver side (no income tax) and shop in Oregon over the bridge near Portland (no sales tax).
@Matthew R Marler:
It will be even cheaper to buy a natural gas generator and run it in a box out back of the house… (Or even run my Diesel car and I can charge a battery box…)
I’ve already moved to the back yard BBQ as the cost of charcoal and propane are both less than for my All Electric Kitchen.
If you think solar power is going to run my oven (when I’m ‘down sun’ of a few tall redwood trees) that’s just silly.
However, there are LOTS of nice big trees around here to cut down and feed to the BBQ.
Yes, here in The Peoples Republic Of California we are achieving the Socialist Workers Paradise goal of Equality. We, too, can be best served by adopting 3rd World fuel strategies and cooking our food in the yard over a Rocket Stove with sticks for fuel… No, no smiley. I’ve “done the math” and bought the needed materials. $10 for a metal tube and cinderblocks. Already have the old grill…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/beer-cans-will-save-the-world/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/camping-at-home-is-cheaper/
See, this is the kind of thing that happens when Emergent Behaviour meets “PC Best Intentions”…
Next up, I’m buying about 50 lbs of Lead Acid battery ( I already have the 2 kW inverter and the battery box from when Governor Grey (out) Davis last played with our electricity system, so it’s time to finish that project that got shelved when he was recalled…) Then it’s just a quick clip to run either my generator or my Diesel car (whichever is cheaper at the time) to charge the box..
Yup, gotta love this New Green Paradise. Folks running Diesel and nat gas generators at home and chopping down the woods to cook dinner. Reminds me of Africa…
AND it will be far cheaper than buying solar or using that PG&E PC stuff…
No, no /sarc>; and no smiley. Dead serious and “did the math”… Need to get a filter set up to filter some ‘scrap oils’ for the Diesel to burn. Not as clean as the commercial stuff, but a whole lot cheaper.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the local school is going to chop down the trees over the play field to install a solar panel field.
It has a subsidy so it must be a good idea /sarcoff>;
Really, they are not putting them over the parking lot as “that might cause the neighbors to not like the view” and are going to cut down established trees to put them over the play field.
You just can’t make up this kind of stupidity.
But I might be able to score some nice wood for cooking…