The President says he would like to stop new wind power development from wrecking America’s electric power grid. There is a simple and sensible way to do this that stops solar as well. Simply ban hooking these destructively intermittent generators into the grid.
The States have the authority to build power generators but approving their connection to the American grid is a federal function. The lead agency is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the Energy Department. This authority is delegated to the Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) subject to FERC oversight.
The present situation is absurd as the RTOs have queues of connection requests from renewables developers that in total megawatts exceed their peak demand. The unpredictable intermittency of generation from these renewables threatens to wreck the grid.
FERC has the authority and the responsibility to ban the connection of intermittent generation. They just approved a proposal from a regional transmission operator to prioritize approving the connection of dispatchable generators ahead of intermittent ones.
Dispatchable means the generator can produce electricity when it is needed. Wind and solar cannot do this as they only produce power when the wind blows hard and the sun shines strong. This unpredictable dependency on weather is called intermittency. It can vary greatly from day to day, hour to hour, even minute to minute. This endless variation can easily destabilize the grid in ways that range from destructive voltage and frequency swings to deadly blackouts.
It is a simple step for FERC to go from prioritizing dispatchable generation to mandating it by not approving the connection of destructive intermittent generators.
FERC’s mission statement is clear:
“FERC ensures reliable, safe, secure & economically efficient energy for consumers at a reasonable cost.”
There are two very good reasons for FERC to do ban new intermittency connections — reliability and cost. Intermittency destabilizes the grid and costs a fortune. In theory storage could fix this but it is impossibly expensive. There is no feasible cure for intermittency.
The cost of intermittency is exorbitant because dispatchable generation has to be constantly available to run when the renewables do not. Americans wind up paying for two systems of generation when the dispatchable system alone could do the job. Adding intermittent generation is a wasteful and expensive redundancy.
But the instability from renewables is far more expensive than this redundancy. Things like computers and internet data centers which are central to our way of life require high quality electricity. Even small variations in AC frequency or voltage can wreck them.
Computers now operate much of our essential systems and equipment making that them highly sensitive to electric power quality. Losing whole systems can be catastrophic.
There has been a growing chorus of warnings that America’s grid is becoming unstable due to the unwise replacement of dispatchable generators with intermittent ones. This trend cannot go on and it is up to FERC to reverse it.
That some States have laws mandating an impossible transition to intermittent renewables is irrelevant. FERC’s responsibility is to the American people not to ill conceived State laws. Reliable electric power at a reasonable cost is essential to America. It must be restored.
Electricity usage grew steadily throughout the twentieth century. That steady growth suddenly stopped around the turn of the century but now it has resumed with strong growth predicted. Much of the new need is for high quality electricity which the growing glut of intermittent generation makes impossible. Adding disruptive intermittent generation to the grid must be stopped until reliability is restored and secured with a lot of new dispatchable generation.
FERC must act quickly to restore reliability. FERC’s first step is to ban the connection of new intermittent generation to America’s grid.
Perverse incentives for utilities to add wind and solar, and drop written down thermal plants must be abolished.
The issue in Texas is that subsidies for wind and solar distort the market, discouraging investment in dispatchable power sources. (Incidentally, Google’s spell check does not know the word “dispatchable”). The problem is that the subsidies are federal.
Dispatchable: capable of removing an American Scout’s (formerly a Boy Scout) merit badge.
Formerly a girl scout was called a “Girl Guide” but now I assume they are “American Guide” and surely the deserved the right to be dispachable 🙂
Good idea.
Most of the time, windmills seem to be absolutely stationary.
Who would notice if they weren’t actually connected to a grid?
Connect them to Batteries (Pumped Storage Batteries) and connect those Batteries to the grid
Reduction in additional renewables will give the storage investment a chance to catch up and stabilise the grid. Storage benefits peak loading and so is always beneficial. Peak loading energy prices and much higher than people realise and that reflects the value of that stored energy.
No amount of investment can stabilise the amount of renewables in existence.
Far cheaper to build nuclear and ditch renewables altogether.
“Far cheaper to build nuclear and ditch renewables altogether.”
This has always been the only real answer to clean, reliable, efficient and not too costly energy for all aside from hydro. But I guess there isn’t much easy money in “real answers”.
Bold statement. Any storage improves peak load management and improves stability and its not like the grid is particularly unstable today.
Nuclear just isn’t being built so whether you think its best or not, its just not happening.
Storage isn’t being built because it’s impossibly expensive.
The only reason why nuclear isn’t being built is because so called environmentalists use the courts to block it at every turn.
The penetration of the grid is small enough and localized enough, that the instabilities are infrequent and localized.
As the penetration increases, so does the instability.
Storage is being built at an increasing rate. Storage costs are decreasing.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/annual-grid-scale-battery-storage-additions-2017-2022
“…and connect those Batteries to the grid.”
Batteries – direct current, the grid – three phase alternating current.
An inverter for each phase? Or a DC motor driving a regular generator?
Just wondering…..
Wojick the dictator
Ban whatever he does not like?
Congress has the authority to end all energy subsidies, mandates and tax credits. Not dictator Trump.
The private electricity generating companies can choose the power sources they prefer. without federal subsidies, tax credits or mandates.
It would be illegal to change the laws that existed when they built the existing wind farms and solar farms. An ex post facto law is a law that applies retroactively to criminal or civil actions. The term comes from the Latin phrase ex post facto, which means “after the fact”.
Governments should not encourage more wind and solar, or punish investors in existing wind and solar.
If an electric utility wants to connect a new unsubsidized wind farm or solar farm to the grid, that should not be banned. That’s called a free market — you may want to look up the word “capitalism”, Mr. Wojick.
The three US grids are not yet at high risk of blackouts — such claim is hyperbole. (aka claptrap)
Dear Richard,
It is possible for a person to state their opinions without being ugly or harsh.
One idea is to assume you are conversing with people in their living rooms and you prefer not to get thrown out on to the sidewalk. Of course, you don’t have to be a gentleman. It’s a choice.
FERC has the authority and the responsibility to ban the connection of intermittent generation.
FERC is part of the Department of Energy
Chris Wright is now the head of the DoE, and is totally behind this request from Trump.
Just a matter of changing the rules so as to forbid erratic non-dispatchable attaching to the grids, and in doing so, put reliability of supply as the priority.
Mr. Green, you used the term “free market” to describe the U.S. electricity generation, transmission, and distribution system.
You are a funny guy.
I think you forgot to add, “I’ll be here all week, and try the veal.” at the end of your post.
If an electric utility wants to connect a new unsubsidized wind farm or solar farm to the grid, that should not be banned.
True, but:
Indeed. And in a free market the grid operators would have the power to include that in any commercial deal.
You would contract for a steady supply with no intermittency, If te generator could not supply that the value of th electricity falls to near zero.
Imagine getting a wad of cash every so often as a salary but with the proviso you spend it all the moment you get it. And no credit or savings available.
It would be worthless. Like renewable energy actually is.
This argument fails with the addition of storage on the grid. The times when there is excess energy on the grid, the storage fills and the times when there is a deficit, the storage provides the difference.
Way too many people dont understand that even a small amount of storage gives benefit and instead think storage is all about “getting through the night” or “getting through the winter”.
Excess energy is also excess investment which will be paid by the consumer. A real cost/benefit analysis from the perspective of the end user would reveal what the true cost actually is.
This statement is so vacuous, it is ridiculous. If you want to address the real issues, then address them ALL!
The real issue isn’t storage getting though the night. It’s getting the grid from where it is currently to its future state and that doesn’t happen overnight.
It IS part of the real issue! You continually minimize the impact and problems that unreliable wind and solar inject into grid. Storage is a complicating piece that raises the price of electricity to the end users. Not a good trade off for the end user.
You cant go from having no storage to having sufficient storage to go overnight. That’s never going to happen, it takes decades at least to get to that point.
First you need to accept that point and align your thoughts with that fact.
Meanwhile having some storage is definitely beneficial for meeting peak demand, catering for times where there is excess energy on the grid and meeting FCAS requirements.
You personally may not think they’re important but batteries in Australia are making a killing on meeting the peak demand because the peak demand spot price is so high and always was.
The crisis level problem is exactly getting through the night or getting through the winter.
“ the addition of storage on the grid”
Might as well declare that when operated by unicorns, grid failure can’t happen.
There is no storage, and there is no technology present or in the foreseeable future that will be capable of providing said storage.
Already covered by someone else.
Indeed. Just remove government interference in energy, and let the dice fall where they may, and let the free market decide,
Creating yet more legislation is not the optimal approach. Just remove what is there already…
…But optimal approach has big words in it, so it aint gonna happen.
Stop whining
Remove all subsidies and let’s see if wind and solar can stand on its own. I doubt it. As suggested in another comment: perverse incentives distorts the market. Rationale investors would not invest in wind and solar without subsidies. Where is the ROI? I see none. The cost of electricity these intermittent sources produce is too expensive and simply not economical. Look no further than what is taking place in Europe. Germany’s economy is in shambles. SMR’s are the future until fusion becomes feasible.
What should happen is what has been done for years in the U.S. if you want to supply power, you must have a system that will supply that power at a guaranteed reliability. Any miss will be punished with financial penalties.
No subsidies at all. Price to the consumer is the predominate factor. May the best provider with the lowest cost win! Simple.
If states want to establish isolated grids for whatever reasons, so be it. Those isolated grids can suffer the cost and the reliability issues. Isolated grids must be totally isolated, no support from ratepayers in other locations subject to national rules.
If a regulatory agency, operating under the cover of laws already passed, bans something, is that being dictatorial?
Your TDS is causing you to get even more irrational than usual.
He’s also added a 25% tariff of oil from Canada which accounts for nearly a quarter of the US oil consumption so I wouldn’t hope for energy prices to decrease any time soon.
It’s 10% on Canadian energy products, which includes their oil.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/pump-prices-set-rise-trump-tariffs-hit-canadian-mexican-oil-2025-02-01/
Ok, That’s still a considerable hit. There’s also a 25% tariff on Mexican oil and gas.
I think he want you to drill you own oil and gas.
Are you assuming I’m American? I expect you mean he wants the US to increase their own production except that it typically takes years to do so.
No they have retired or parked assets based on political ideology
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/wells/
The settings have already had an effect
https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/crude-oil/010225-commodities-2025-year-2025-to-see-record-oil-output-but-few-recent-lease-sales-may-take-longer-term-toll
If the net US production increases the tariff would have little impact.
How does that reference support your claim? There are hundreds of thousands of wells producing literally a few barrels per day. They’re not “retired” or “parked” they’re depleted.
The higher output wells that are increasing are almost certainly due to fracking which itself has increased. Do you think its financially viable to spend the money fracking wells that produces 10 barrels per day?
Your next link describes fields that will come online this year or in years to come and considering the US uses about 20M barrels per day, the new fields mentioned are small.
If you’re referring to possible oil as per
Then this is exactly the oil that is years away.
But please let me know where I’m misinterpreting your links.
No they have retired or parked assets based on political ideology
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/wells/
The settings have already had an effect for oil
https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/crude-oil/010225-commodities-2025-year-2025-to-see-record-oil-output-but-few-recent-lease-sales-may-take-longer-term-toll
In 2023, oil production in the United States reached 19.4 million barrels per day it consumes 20.25 million barrels per day.
If the net US production increases the tariff would have little impact.
It’s a proposed tariff based on the behavior of the Mexican government.
So far, the Mexican government has been willing to make the changes needed to avoid the tariff.
In other words, the tariff is working as intended.
It increases the price of energy to US citizens. By definition.
He has not put any tariff on oil.
He has. 10% for Canada and 25% for Mexico. Canada supplies a lot.
Here is the official facts sheet straight from the government
And here is the relevant quote
There is one way to resolve the intermittency problem–require all generators to provide on-site make-up energy(capacity) at all times they don’t produce at nameplate ratings. For most wind and solar that would mean adding gas/oil generators with on-site fuel to run them for weeks or months. That would make them dispatchable.
A related way is to require them to bid 24 hours in advance for supplying power and have very substantial penalties for not supplying the power along with substantial penalties for supplying power in excess of what was bid on. Equally important is eliminating the tax credits for production.
Now for the grid stability problem. Put limits on how fast the sites can ramp up or down the power supplied to the grid unless a faster ramp is needed for frequency control.
Do you really think its a good idea to have the Government setting rules for practical grid operation? I’m surprised people on this forum support that idea. Well not really, I suppose.
The government owns and runs the national grid? Who do you propose should set up these rules?
Engineers. The people who know how to make the grid stable on a day to day basis.
Another thing that could also stop them is to require a guaranteed MW/GW output number and pay them nothing if they can’t/don’t meet the output requirements.
Also eliminating “Take or Pay” AND Non production subsidies would also go a long way
Don’t pay them nothing — hold them to their contract. If they can’t provide the promised power, tell them to buy it from elsewhere.
Or generate it on site from their own Gas/Diesel Generation
Very nice. The Trump administration needs to meet with FERC and remind them of their mission.
FERC’s mission statement is clear:
“FERC ensures reliable, safe, secure & economically efficient energy for consumers at a reasonable cost.”
Hooking wind and solar to the grid is the opposite of their mission. They need to change tomorrow or heads will roll.
FERC Chair Christie has long been very vocal about the loss of reliability. Trump appointed him late first term and made him Chair on “day one” this time. Possibilities. To be politically correct it is a moratorium not a ban.
The simplicity is stunning.
The big wind state is Texas. As I understand, they have avoided federal regulation by not interconnecting to other states.
Here is the list of top ten wind energy producing states
Texas leads by far. But the rest are heartland states. They aren’t trying to save the planet. They just like generating electricity without fuel costs. There would be some heavy pushback there.
Nick, I think you might want to finesse your statement about Illinois, Colorado, Minnesota, California, and others being “heartland states. They aren’t trying to save the planet. They just like generating electricity without fuel costs.”
These are definitely states that are trying to save the planet.
Well, you could quibble, but not about the four leading (by far) states.
I’m content to quibble and be a pedant, but if I ever aspire to join the ranks of nick-pickers, I fully expect to receive an endorsement for membership from you old mate 🙂
And Fuel Costs are only a small portion when compared to overbuild requirements to offset dismal capacity factors and replacement costs to offset both the lifespan discrepancy and susceptibility to storm damage from both Hail and Strong Winds.
Much like the EV/ICV cost disparity with EV pricing sufficient to provide thousands of gallons of gasoline or diesel free to the ICV. A $40,000 price difference buys 10,000 gallons at $4/gal
You wouldn’t expect an intelligent fair balanced overall view from Nick Stokes tho would you?
Any more than from the current administration which seems hell bent on creating an idiocracy.
It’s the electrolytes, man…
The fuel costs for CCGT in Texas are on the order of $20/MWHr, which probably cheaper than the incremental cost of charging/discharging the same energy in a battery.
Few understand the value of peak demand energy. This is from Australia’s energy market AEMO‘s state of the market document.
They’re capped at that. That gives you an idea of how valuable the battery energy is.
“The fuel costs for CCGT in Texas are on the order of $20/MWHr,”
But the ERCOT wholesale average price for November 2024 was $12.50/MWh. Fuel is a very large chunk out of thet.
To be fair, it seems the whole year average cost was about $47/MWh for 2024. But $20 is still a large fraction of that.
“They just like generating electricity without fuel costs.”
Still peddling that nonsense, eh?
Nick do you think it was market driven try looking at the other leading states 🙂
“In 1999 the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) adopted rules for the state’s Renewable Energy Mandate, establishing a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), a renewable-energy credit (REC) trading program, and renewable-energy purchase requirements for competitive retailers in Texas. The 1999 standard called for 2,000 megawatts (MW) of new renewables to be installed in Texas by 2009, in addition to the 880 MW of existing renewables generation at the time. In August 2005, S.B. 20 increased the renewable-energy mandate to 5,880 MW by 2015 (about 5% of the state’s electricity demand), including a target of 500 MW of renewable-energy capacity from resources other than wind. Wind accounts for nearly all of the current renewable-energy generation in Texas. The 2005 legislation also set a target of reaching 10,000 MW of renewable energy capacity by 2025
I think they proved if you pay enough money companies will build windmills 🙂
“The 2005 legislation also set a target of reaching 10,000 MW of renewable energy capacity by 2025″
When the target is reached, the subsidy ceases. Texas now has 40,000 MW wind capacity. That is the market at work.
You Sir are a true believer and Texas wind needs your support 🙂
https://www.earthday.org/the-war-on-wind-rages-in-texas/
Not sure you can help much from Australia but the links for support are at the bottom … the poor guys need yet more money and need politicians to get on board.
Remember the motto … Together, we can fight for a renewable-powered future.
They just like generating electricity without fuel costs. There would be some heavy pushback there.
You keep saying this – to make the argument explicit, it seems to be that wind and solar are cheaper than conventional because they have no fuel costs Stop them being used and costs would rise, followed by prices. This presumably is why there would be ‘some heavy pushback’
Despite repeated challenges you haven’t ever shown either a working example or a summary business case to show that adding wind and solar reduces costs. You haven’t even shown that it reduces fuel consumption at all, still less by enough to justify the construction connection and maintenance of wind. Just produce an example if you can. And make sure to include all the costs!
You keep saying that wind and solar are fuel free, but have never answered the fundamental objection that they are not Because their supply in raw form is not usable. They have to be used along with conventional generation to deliver usable supply, so to deploy wind and solar does carry a heavy fuel cost.
Paul Homewood in the UK has done his best to disentangle the rats nest of subsidies that the UK has found necessary to get wind and solar deployed. His latest piece is here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/14/clean-power-2030-plan-will-cost-242-billion/
You can also look at the evidence from the UK wind auctions, and particularly from the failed and restarted last couple. Homewood published some perfectly clear analyses of them leading to the same conclusion.
All the evidence from the UK is that adding wind and solar to the network has lowered grid stabliity dangerously and has raised costs and energy prices. They had a near miss on blackouts last month during the wind calm, and if they keep on their present course one of these near misses will result in a crash in the next few years.
“Because their supply in raw form is not usable. They have to be used along with conventional generation to deliver usable supply, so to deploy wind and solar does carry a heavy fuel cost.”
That is not logical. It is being used. FF is used to cover low wind periods, but that is much better fuelwise than using it all the time.
Wind energy in Iowa made up 59% of total generation in 2023, and the lights stayed on. That is a lot of fuel saved. Iowa is not run by greenies.
I don’t know enough about Iowa to be able to comment. But where are the numbers? Where are the studies showing that adding wind saved money on a fully costed, no subsidies basis, due to fuel savings? Where are the studies even showing a fuel saving?
Paul Homewood has produced a series of analyses for the UK, with numbers. You need to address them. In particular, the failed auctions repeated at dramatically higher prices. The UK is a real test case because all the numbers are available, mostly in near real time.
As Hume remarks, miracles always happen in remote times and distant places and where there are few qualified observers. If any!
“Where are the studies even showing a fuel saving?” while lowering prices for delivered electric power for a sustained period? Nick can never show any real world examples of his imagined renewables utopia.
The stupidity of wind is shown by the fact the Seagreen offshore windfarm off the coast of Angus in the North Sea has been paid £104m for electricity generation and £262m to curtail and switch off!
“Where are the studies even showing a fuel saving?”
Here is a plot of carbon intensity of electricity generation the UK. Carbon emitted is closely related to fuel burnt. Since 2012 it has dropped by a factor of 3.
The proof is in what consumer costs are! My electricity costs are close to double what they were just 5 years ago. I suspect Iowa is similar.
If you want to prove a point, show where consumer costs per kWh have been reduced by free fuel as you call it. Otherwise, your argument fails miserably.
A lot of things are double what they cost 5 years ago.
But those aren’t using “free fuel” as a reason for electricity from unreliable wind and solar being cheaper than FF and nuclear
No, they’re typically supplies that do use expensive fuel. And there are massive organisations behind them that also have increasing costs. Blaming the renewables for everything is just naïve IMO.
Exactly Jim.
Some here are disappearing up their own fundaments with convoluted cherry-picked inclusions & exclusions of cost components in delivered utility electricity.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE ON A CONSUMER’S ELECTRICITY BILL IS.
And in most areas, those totals are rising inexorably as wind, solar, batteries and reliable backup are added to the systems.
Look at the line items. Is the increase due to the variable energy costs? Or is it in the fixed daily costs (assuming you have similar bills to us in Australia)?
That will tell you whether the increase is genuinely energy cost or whether its increased cost of doing business.
OK, here is the resident price history (BLS) for the West North Central region. The West North Central division includes Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
It’s seasonal, but winter prices have gone from about 12 to 14 c/KwH. And here is the history for the South Atlantic region, which has very little wind. The price has gone from about 12.5 to 16c
I know that looks good to you in Australia, but here in Ohio, my current rate is about $0.06/kWh. Starting in April, it goes up to $0.08/kWh for the next year. I could lock in a slightly higher rate for 3 years, but decided not to at this time. We have 2 nuclear plants in the area, and I don’t know what else, but very little of the so-called renewables.
I pity folks who pay variable rates based on peak vs whatever. Since we have reliable electricity here, a constant rate 24/365 works well.
I would be really upset with Iowa’s prices.
And the other nonsense raises it’s invalid head.
This has also been explained to you many times. Not once have you ever tried to refute the arguments. As usual, you just ignore them
Because it takes time, hours to days, to fire up fossil fuel plants, they use almost as much energy running in idle, ready to step in at moments notice when wind and solar fail.
The savings in fuel costs are so minor that they can safely be ignored. Especially when you consider the fact that fuel costs are one of the smallest costs of running a power plant.
Beyond that, ramping the power level of a plant up and down increases the wear and tear on a plant, increasing costs by far more than the amount of fuel saved.
“Because it takes time, hours to days, to fire up fossil fuel plants”
You can fire up a CCGT generator in half an hour.
Some maybe, but not all and probably not even most. Mark is wrong about using as much energy when idle, the plants that provide FCAS are the types that ramp up quickly.
His main problem is believing “ready to step in at moments notice when wind and solar fail.”
When in fact the load on the grid changes from moment to moment with or without variable generators like wind or solar. The grid has always had to cater for variable load. Arguably the grid load is more variable now but its not fundamentally different to what it always was.
The biggest pushback will be from states with net zero laws. And don’t forget offshore wind. This would be an outrageous Trump action. Fine by me.
The cost vs benefit of wind and solar in my mind does not add up: upfront, on-going maintenance, replacement and decommissioning. Add in intermittency, not scalable and not dispatchable makes these sources of electricity impractical. Reliability, dispatchable, scalable and efficiency should be the focus.
“Decommissioning” will be on going process for W&S installations. Functionally, forever, because most of the sites now used are the best available, and will stay on into the foreseeable future. Wear, tech improvements, will make this activity ongoing, and because (unlike private sector fossil fuel locations) they pay rent, they will clean up as they go. Unlike FF facilities, current scofflawing is rare and lessor enforcement will make it rarer.
OTOH, US FF locations have and will accrue 12 $ figures – mostly uninsured/unlockboxed – worth of present value asset retirement obligations, with shirking most of them imbedded in their biz plans. This is never included in incremental LCOE ROR calculations.
In your mind, wind and solar last forever and never have to be replaced?
Fossil fuel plants usually buy the land they sit on. Rent isn’t necessary.
“In your mind, wind and solar last forever and never have to be replaced?”
Reading comp. Yes, they will. With newer, better facilities, even more certainly out into the far future. After all, unless your notional SMR’s take off, that’s all there will be after the next eye blink, when FF’s are depleted. ‘Coz unlike FF facilities, the value is in the site, not in the depleting resource below it.
“Fossil fuel plants usually buy the land they sit on. Rent isn’t necessary.”
And? We’re talking about the fuel source for both, with the renewable source also providing field conditioned electric power. Most oil/gas fields aren’t owned by the producers any more. And they don’t pay “rent” on those on private lands (i.e. most of the spots where those fields are, now) that they don’t own. They pay damages for land use, and royalty, if the surface owner has mineral rights.
Yes, they will
Until they do, they don’t.
Sorry to bubble burst, Tony, but it’s the FF’ers who are on track to shirk hundreds of billions in freely agreed to ARO’s. Abetted by plenty of Ben Dover regulatory entities of course…
My mistake, Tony. Would you please expand on the point of this remark? I first attributed it to an earlier comment, but now I have no idea what you referring to.
Your first response to me makes absolutely no sense, but I’ll take it in light of the second. Allow me to restate with more context from the message I was responding to (of which I quoted the specific part I was responding to, italicized below):
“In your mind, wind and solar last forever and never have to be replaced?”
Reading comp. Yes, they will.
My response:
Until they do, they don’t.
These installations will indeed last “until they don’t”. What we are exchanging views on is when.
Do you think that we will have oil and gas forever? Rhetorical, because apparently you do. But since that’s not – er – too thoughtful, then let’s consider what will replace them. SMR’s? Actually, we hope so. But if not, then we want a source of energy that can be – yes – renewable. Luckily, we already know here to go to find those sources, and the energy from them will be available, functionally into perpetuity. So, “until they don’t” don’t get it in the real world…
WTF are you babbling about?
Mark said “In your mind, wind and solar last forever and never have to be replaced?”
To which you responded “Yes, they will” – i.e. yes, wind and solar WILL last forever.
I said “until they do, they don’t” – i.e. they currently DO NOT last forever. Until that FACT materializes, saying so is nothing more than wishful thinking.
“What we are exchanging views on is when.”
According to your response to Mark, when will be never. Reading comprehension, remember?
Oh, I get it, you’re playing a rhetorical trick instead of addressing Marks’ actual point, which is that wind and solar installations will not last forever. I guess it’s easier to play word games than to address the actual point (which was clear to me because I am able to read and understand Mark’s response in context of your comment mentioning installations)
Do you think that we will have oil and gas forever? Rhetorical, because apparently you do.
Where in anything I said did you get that from?
I read bigoilbob’s reply of “yes they will” to mean yes they will need to be replaced.
And he went on to say
Which I read as when they’re replaced, they’ll be replaced with better facilities.
If someone says something that’s clearly wrong look for your own understanding of what they’ve said first. Maybe you’ve misinterpreted it. I’m as guilty as anyone but try…
Some people are beyond help, of course.
Perhaps I did read it wrong Tim, but that’s definitely not the impression I got. The question specifically stated was “In your mind, wind and solar last forever and never have to be replaced?” so as I read it, “yes” affirms the statement.
I’ve read it over a couple times again – I do now see how you’re seeing it. I think the initial response could have been phrased better.
But he did, indeed, claim I hold a position that I have given no indication of holding.
I often look back over what I write and think exactly the same thing about my own writing.
The subsidies and mandates are still federal.
Fuel costs are one of if not the smallest cost of running a fossil fuel power plant.
This has been explained to you many times Nick.
It’s almost as if you are going out of your way to be dishonest.
Fuel costs are one of if not the smallest cost of running a fossil fuel power plant.
What I would like to see is a calculation of:
TOTAL costs of the plant, starting with construction, including all inputs and whatever amounts are covered by subsidies PLUS total cost of operation (including fuel, but also maintenance, etc.) for the lifetime of the plant
divided by
Total GWH output of the plant over its lifetime
That’s the only number that matters: cost per GWH of production.
This was directly refuted last time you claimed it with a direct example from a power company’s annual report. Fuel costs are enormous.
The irony.
There should be no restriction on connecting new generation providing it produces a harmonic free voltage and can be dispatched at its rated capacity at better than 90% of all time.
Scheduling to be based on merit order for long run average cost at rated output.
No rooftop solar can generate into the grid.
Here in the US Northwest, power planning is handled by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC), which reports in turn to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), which in turn reports to the FERC.
The NWPCC and the WECC are funded by the American west’s green politicians, the great majority of whom are strongly into supporting wind and solar at the expense of baseload generation.
A casual look at the various planning documents on the NWPCC and WECC web sites reflects the strong bias of these two agencies towards the green politicians who pay their bills.
After reading some of their planning documents, one can only conclude that the NWPCC and WECC staffs are all so deep into wind & solar fantasy land that they have turned a blind eye to what their real mission is supposed to be.
If the past three weeks of the Trump administration represent a pattern for the near-term future, a powerful wakeup call is coming for the green politicians, and for the NWPCC and WECC professional staffs.
My own prediction is that in the absence of a FERC dictate that new-build wind & solar generation can no longer be attached to the grid, the state governments of Oregon, Washington, and California would continue to push strongly for a wind & solar expansion, even to the extent of funding it themselves, at least partially.
Yes their Resource Adequacy Assessment projects rapid demand growth to be met mostly with wind, solar and batteries.
See https://feature.wecc.org/wara/#group-section-Resource-Changes-QG2EfElxRl
Completely unrealistic.
Who approves connection in this region?
David, the WECC approves generator connections to the Western Interconnect. Given the WECC’s strong bias towards an expansion of wind & solar, we should expect that any wind or solar project which wants a connection to the Western Interconnect will be granted approval — unless the FERC steps in and tells WECC to stop, which I presume the FERC has authority to do.
Stop the subsidies.
Yes it’s funny how the climate zealots complain about oil & gas subsidies. The numbers for Texas are interesting
https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-10-LP-Federal-Energy-Subsidies-BrentBennett_FINAL-1.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
from 2010 to 2023, oil and gas received $33 billion in subsidies, while wind received $65 billion and solar received $76 billion. Nuclear received about $26 billion, and coal received $20 billion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There are no subsidies for oil and gas.
Taking a deduction that all other companies get, is not a subsidy.
Some of this is just wrong. For example
“Things like computers and internet data centers which are central to our way of life require high quality electricity. Even small variations in AC frequency or voltage can wreck them.”
Now firstly “high quality electricity” is nowhere defined and could mean anything or nothing.
While the second part is just plain wrong. My laptop for example has an AC/DC converter
that works in the UK, the USA, Europe and so can deal with 220V, 240V, 120V, 50Hz, 60Hz
and any combination of them. And in any mainframe the first component is a similar AC/DC converter meaning that small variations in frequency or voltage are irrelevant.
But can it deal with 51Hz or 49Hz (UK) or 61Hz or 59Hz (US) without frazzling?
Switch mode power supplies that drive nearly everything these days (and certainly the laptop in question) start out by rectifying the input voltage…so no, it makes no difference whether its exactly 50 or 60Hz.
The answer is yes. A SMPS will work from DC to probably several hundred kHz.
The limiting factor is the rectifier switching speed.
It’s not electronics that is at risk. It’s big industrial motors. That were designed on the assumption that the grid would be, within very tight limits, stable frequency wise.
Or anything else that assumes a stable 50 or 60Hz will be available at a socket near you.
Yes,
because most/all electronic equipment runs on DC (supplied by AC to DC converters) so as Tim says a stable frequency doesn’t matter.
The stable frequency problem areas are, anything with an AC motor, which are the things that actually power our modern society.
Available in powers from the fractional HP compressor in your fridge up to 24,000 HP wastewater pumps, they have to receive stable frequency, as small variations in AC frequency or voltage can wreck them.
That’s also, not quite correct.
If you picture a frequency variation, it basically means that the very large generator has sped up or slowed down it’s rotational speed. The revolution count might have changed from say 3000 RPM to 2995 RPM over a few seconds. The torque required
to be absorbed from the machine will induce some bending in the windings and the winding supports on the armature. BUT, this bending is well within the design capacity of the generator. It must be, else a short circuit on the transmission lines, (which is the likely highest load that the generator will see), would destroy the armature structure.
If a large, (sometimes in the hundreds of tonnes), can be sped up or slowed down, without damage, then you’ll find that the smaller motors, (as used in industry), will also handle the same frequency change. If you think they’ll suffer damage then you need to look at the stresses that the machine undergoes during startup. It faces the largest loads on the armature as it ramps up to it’s rated speed.
So, minor frequency change/drift will not damage a large electric motor.
The largest loads applied to the industrial motor is a start-up or emergency stop. Most likely the latter but these are applied very infrequently and rarely, if ever cause damage within the motor.
And as a final test, if you think that a few hertz worth of drift will destroy a sensitive modern fridge then you had better tell everyone who lives off grid to stop running them from generators.
Even a mild load change, eg turning on a light, will see the generator stutter and the frequency jump by a very large amount compared to any national grid.
Yes. It is not computers that have problems with poor frequency stabilisation, It is big industrial synchronous motors that are used in e.g., manufacturing. Imagine you are running a big steel sheet making roller plant and your roller mill suddenly slows down.., because the wind dropped. It would smash the gears on the mill. That is why batteries are being installed. Not to stire sunlight for use after dark.
Germany had to install its own inverters in some factories.
In fact you can design a switched mode power supply – and I worked on a project that had such – that would work from 48VDC to 250VAC. Basically from an aircraft battery to normal UK mains voltages, and 50 or 60Hz. Or anything from DC up to hundreds of Hertz. Without needing to be switched to any different mode.
How much more did this power supply cost and what were the impacts on over all circuit efficiency?
The cost of implementing VRE onto a grid is HUGE. !
IEE Japan showed that in a study of the VietNam grid.
My mistake. Thanks all for the info. Curious then that AC variation can cause blackouts.
AC frequency at the power levels we are talking about is an indicator of load variations or generator output variations. Power begins to flow wily nily on the grid with some generators driving others or vice versa. Power flowing in reverse can trip breakers among other problems. All of a sudden you have cascading breakers and even generators being taken offline. All these imbalances can also cause current and voltage to go out of sync which can further cause other breakers to trip. It is a big problem with trying to initialize a grid using only unsynced inverters.
You obviously have no Electrical Engineering training. Frequency by itself when dealing with an end device is not the issue.
Frequency can cause problems when synchronous motors are involved such as in a bottling plant but that is a trifling issue.
Frequency is an indicator of a major problem on the grid. Generators slow down as load increases, that means frequency drops. Other generators then become suppliers of power to that generator in an attempt to speed it back up. But, that means less power supplied to the grid. All of a sudden the waveforms become distorted which adds to the problem on the grid.
If you’ve never dealt with reactive power, then you have no idea what you are discussing.
To be fair, Izaak was directly addressing the claim computers and data centres are damaged by variations in frequency and his argument was valid. In this case the OP, Wojick ought to have been much more careful about his claims about grid frequency instability.
Wow, the stupidity of this comment is so breathtaking, that it almost leaves me speechless.
In what passes for your mind, large computer farms are run using power supplies that are just scaled up versions of your laptops power source?
There is a very simple question for believers in net zero through wind and solar. Take a country whose weather and electricity demand we know about in detail, and the UK is a perfect case because they publish everything you need to know.
We know that peak demand is now 47GW and that its expected to rise to 60GW+ as EVs and heat pumps bite.
So just tell us how you would propose to meet this demand? How many GW of:
Then we can take the proposal, run it against the historical record of both demand and weather, and see how it would work.
No-one ever does this. Or rather NESO has done it, and Paul Homewood has dissected it and shown their proposal cannot work.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/neso/
So lets hear it from a believer. Remembering as you do it that we have access to real historical weather patterns, demand patterns, capacity factors. So you’ll have to do better than NESO.
Good suggestion becuase the situation is evern worse.
“The present situation is absurd as the RTOs have queues of connection requests from renewables developers that in total megawatts exceed their peak demand.” The additional problem is that the renewables are likely to be at their worst availability when the load peaks so they are worthless for peak demand.
At some point renewables developers will have to include associated storage in their proposal. That changes the proposal from being potentially problematic to being stabilising and valuable. The question becomes whether it’ll be cost effective to build.
Somebody must really love (insert heart emoji) stranded costs. There must be tens of billions tied up in the queued projects. Who pays, pray tell?
Tell the renewables they can only gain connection to the grid when they can supply reliable, dispatchable power at the correct frequency etc..so the costs for intermittency are borne by the renewables as they should have been right from the start.
I believe it was Holland where they told to turn off solar panels when the suns shine to protect the power grid. Guess what? It worked! At which stage of insanity are we now?
Every solar and wind system added changes the reactance of the transmission wires. It is an enormous technical problem to keep an AC grid in phase with huge unplanned costs.
The spot market for electrical power already solves the stability problem. The problem is that wind and solar are exempt from the spot market. The reason for this is quite simple. Wind and solar only produce power when there is already lots of wind and solar power. And when there is lots of power the spot price falls to zero and can even go negative. So wind and solar get paid nothing unless they are exempt.