By Greg Brophy
Sometimes the debate over U.S. energy policy feels more like a shouting match, instead of a factual discussion about how to meet the nation’s rapidly growing needs.
In one corner, there’s the push for 100% renewables. In the other corner, it’s almost all about oil and gas.
But outside the competing echo chambers on the left and the right, a quiet success story is unfolding in America’s rural – and yes, more politically conservative – communities.
It turns out that keeping the lights on isn’t about picking a side. It’s about picking all the energy sources that can deliver affordable and reliable electricity based on local conditions.
That was the major finding of a new report issued by The Western Way, a non-profit that seeks pro-market solutions to energy and environmental challenges, on power grid reliability in rural America.
The report reviewed 10 rural and conservative-leaning states – Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It concluded the power grids in those states are 2 to 7 times more reliable than the national average, according to data on electrical outages from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
What is their secret? It isn’t a singular reliance on coal or natural gas, nor is it a blind rush toward renewables and battery storage. The data reveals that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Instead, these states are harnessing a range of energy sources to keep their power grids reliable.
Consider just two of the states analyzed in The Western Way report – South Dakota and Arizona – which have some of the most reliable power grids in the country.
In South Dakota, the number one source of electricity is wind (58%), followed by hydropower (22%) and natural gas (11%), with coal and other sources making up the remainder. When working together, these sources make South Dakota’s grid the 2nd most reliable in the country.
But in Arizona, the top source of electricity is natural gas (45%), followed by nuclear (27%) and solar (13%), with coal and hydropower making up most of the balance. Arizona also has more than 2 gigawatts of battery storage capacity, which allows solar power generated during the day to be used after the sun goes down.
Despite looking nothing like South Dakota, the Arizona power grid is also highly reliable, ranked 3rd in the country – and the reliability difference between the two states is less than 0.001%.
Two very different models for keeping the lights on. Both highly effective.
But that’s not all. The Western Way report also finds that the Trump administration’s policy on energy is a lot more nuanced than the mainstream media would have you believe.
Back in July, the U.S. Department of Energy published a study outlining what it will take to keep America’s power grid stable by the end of the decade if the nation’s rising appetite for energy – led by data centers and the reshoring of manufacturing – continues.
The study called for the continued operation of coal and natural gas-fired power plants that have previously been slated for retirement. While most media coverage of the DOE study focused on that recommendation, there was much, much more to the story.
Keeping older plants running longer would close less than a third of the looming reliability gap. The rest of the gap would have to be closed with a range of different energy sources, including 187 gigawatts of solar, wind and battery storage, according to the DOE.
For scale, those projections would increase U.S. renewable electricity capacity by around 40% and the nation’s battery storage by more than 80%, according to September data from the EIA.
The lesson from states like South Dakota and Arizona is that energy decisions cannot be made based on broad-brush national arguments.
Yes, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress opposed federal tax subsidies for wind and solar and started to phase them out. But tax policy is a completely separate conversation from the engineering reality of keeping a regional grid running during a blizzard or a heatwave.
As we face a future of higher demand, no energy source should be sidelined because of rhetoric that doesn’t reflect conditions on the ground. A stable power grid requires a mix of energy sources working together as efficiently as possible – in other words, “all of the above.”
If we truly care about keeping the lights on, let’s stop fighting over the “right” kind of energy and embrace the idea of building a grid that uses it all.
Greg Brophy is a former Republican state senator from Colorado and a fourth-generation corn and melon farmer. He serves as the Rural Energy Network Director of The Western Way.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
“In South Dakota, the number one source of electricity is wind (58%), followed by hydropower (22%) and natural gas (11%), with coal and other sources making up the remainder. When working together, these sources make South Dakota’s grid the 2nd most reliable in the country”
Well, yes. If you do the arithmetic, the remainder is 9%.
The amount of installed wind power per person in South Dakota is about 4 kW.
If we reproduce that system in Britain, we would have to install at least 250 GW of wind power.
That’s not happening.
South Dakota’s population is less than one million. You have about 67 million to electrify. South Dakota’s low population is another feature of the States grid ignored by the article.
A small sparse population is a handicap, not an advantage.
How is this a handicap?
Add rural electric co-ops and their lower relative electric rates across the country to the list of things Nick does not understands about the US but arm waves anyway.
Also its primary industry is food, vast areas of crops.. which don’t need electricity.
Their manufacturing sector uses mostly GAS and PETROLEUM.
Small population means no Industry and little commercial use … that is an advantage right there. That is why it’ easy to have an off grid house but a little problematic for a full city. Your need to work on your trolling it’s failing lately.
So is this like your retirement hobby trolling. There are things like seniors bowling in most local communities which is far more rewarding and generally they can organize a pickup even if you don’t have a car..
Mr. de Boer: I imagine the other seniors kicked him out when they noticed scores were rising at a catastrophic rate whenever he kept score!
Spreading out the intermittency to other states and markets is the key and often involves taxpayer funded transmission line expansion costs omitted from the analysis or lookbacks.
South Dakota consumes 50% more energy than it produces. Why not include that data in your post?
real clear energy bias
RealClearEnergy, as part of the RealClearPolitics (RCP) network, generally reflects a right-leaning or conservative bias in its curation of energy news, analysis, and commentary. It frequently features articles critical of mainstream environmental policies and promotes perspectives favoring traditional energy industries, though it presents a variety of industry-related content.
Key Aspects of RealClearEnergy’s Perspective:
The “Real Clear” operation acts as an aggregator, sometimes. Not all of what they publish reflects their editorial position, with Real Clear Politics running reprints from MSNOW to National Review.
And most of the time, an article favorable towards policy A is immediately followed by an article unfavorable to it. They are quiet good about that. Richard’s comment is simply not true.
Trouble is, the people that do these “bias” reports.. are biased…
… almost always significantly to the left.
bingo!
You say that like it was a bad thing.
Where did you copy and paste this from? Any bias in its perspective? Have you been able to find anyone free from bias? Maybe you should critique what is actually being put forth and leave the politically driven attempt to minimize what is being said by suggesting bias, as if there is such a thing as “free from bias?”
It reads like Copilot
Everybody leans in some direction. Given that most of America’s media hasn’t just leaned to the left, it’s fallen over in that direction. So, a slight leaning to a conservative point of view isn’t necessarily an “energy bias”- more like an energy balancing act or at least trying for some balance.
Let he who is without bias cast the first stone 🙂
Well it would be helpful if the true cost per kWh was available for the two states as well. Honestly I don’t care that much about reliability if in return I can’t afford it. So much for numbers and comparisons.
Good point. I understand that Bentley and Rolls Royce cars are very reliable.
True more generally. Quoting wind, solar and battery installations in MW or GW instead of MWH and GWH is highly deceptive. A 68 GW battery installation may have no more than 68-136 GWH capability while a similar solar installation may deliver an average of only 6.8 GW over the course of a winter’s day.
Wind and solar are inherently unreliable, and mostly exist as subsidy mines. If one ignores
their contribution as far as reliability, they distort the economics of the grid, as they do not pay for their required backup. Which discourages building conventional sources, which is counterproductive.
”All of the Above” is a cover for subsidy miners.
The article says ‘But tax policy is a completely separate conversation from the engineering reality of keeping a regional grid running during a blizzard or a heatwave.’
SO shut up about subsidies……
Or are you one of these 99.99% of people who think that tax policy affects how the grid is run?
Huh? He is talking about subsidies, not taxes, Subsidies go the other way.
You may disagree, but cease and desist all efforts to silence him.
Absolutely right regarding subsidy mining
Expensive wind and solar systems are widely dispersed, require lots of grid work to connect them. The cf of that grid work is equal to the average cf of the various wind and solar systems.
These systems produce expensive, grid-disturbing, variable, intermittent electricity, that needs to be “smoothed”/counteracted by OTHER POWER PLANTS, 24/7/365. The more W/S systems, the greater the counteracting, the greater the cost/kWh
The financing and tax shelters of these systems is along standard lines, as designed by Wall Street.
More than 20 years ago, Warren Buffett, said, without the subsidies, the spreadsheets do not make sense.
Every state, or country, with a lot of wind and solar, also has high household and commercial/industrial electric rates.
Wind and solar has been an economic and environmental death sentence for Spain, The UK, Germany, etc.
Bugs Bunny said it best: “What a maroon. What an ignoraminus”.
‘Arizona also has more than 2 gigawatts of battery storage capacity, …..’
Yes, and I fill up my car with 60 miles per hour of fuel.
As far as I can tell, Arizona’s battery storage capacity is about 12 GWh, or about 30 minutes of supply at peak period, as peak demand is about 24 GW.
I suspect their setup fits Arizona’s requirements. Lower latitude. Not too cold in the winter. And very hot summers during times when solar is at its peak. Arizona doesn’t have the risks of outage like many others do so 30 minutes might fit.
It would horribly inadequate for New York, of course, particularly during the winter. Strengthens the “What in the hell is New York thinking with this net zero silliness” argument.
And their populations ?
SD 925K
Ariz 7,582 K….
higher population needs gas ….
A lot is unsaid in this post. {and the rest of this comment}
“The residential electricity rate in South Dakota is approximately 13.40 cents per kilowatt-hour as of January 2026.” {so says the internet}
Meanwhile, in Douglas County, WA the rate is 2.35¢/kWh.
Did I mention the Great State of Washington, once famous for its green forests, is now as blue as blue can be. In Kittitas County, close to Douglas, I pay 10.89¢ plus a monthly facility charge of $28.37.
The web informs me that as of the end of 2024, 39 power dams have been removed from the State’s rivers. They helped Washington to offer about the least expensive electricity in the country. No more.
Not true. The dams that have been removed were quite old and silted in to the point of almost no storage. The most famous is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_of_the_Elwha_River
For another see: Condit Hydroelectric Project
There are lots of images and context for these.
The last coal plant just closed, though.
Why can’t silt behind dams be removed?
This article avoids the obvious problem of optimizing system configuration with criteria for analysis agreed on in advance.
So no, “all of the above” pushed incrementally does NOT arrive at the best system for either cost, capacity, or reliability. Any intermittent weather-dependent source that is allowed to inject kWh into the system, without also providing its own backup, is parasitic to the rest of the system. A true discounted cash flow option analysis would show the best configuration which meets a firm reliability standard.
DITCH this “all-of-the-above” messaging!
Sorry if this sounds too harsh. It cannot be otherwise and make any sense at all.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yes.
Australia has ruined grid economics by allowing weather dependent generators to artificially reduce the capacity factor of the coal generators. In 2003, base load power cost $23/MWh, possibly the lowest cost in the world. Base load power now costs $110/MWh because the lowest costs generating assets have been artificially forced out of supply as their demand collapses.
“The data reveals that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Instead, these states are harnessing a range of energy sources to keep their power grids reliable.”
South Dakota gets 58% or so of their power from windmills because the state experiences steady strong winds and wind is very heavily subsidized by you and me, regardless of where we live. Number 2 on the list is hydro and 3 is said to be gas. That is false, Number 3 is coal, from Wyoming. Most other states get less from wind because their winds are not steady nor strong. Is wind power economic in South Dakota, or would they enjoy steady less expensive power from coal or gas? Probably. Absent the subsidies, wind would be more expensive than coal or gas because the windmills are expensive, require lots of maintenance and have short lifetimes. Very generous subsidies that we all pay for are the only reason windmills exist at all. All of the “data” must be considered including subsidies, cost of construction, maintenance, replacement, disposal, staffing and the skill level of staffing and on and on. This article doesn’t do it. It focuses only on reliability. Reliability is one of the two essential features of electrical grids. The other is low cost. This article ignores half of the issue. Bunk!
Actually there is a One-Size-Fits-All solution.
Going nuclear.
But I guess the article is more of the appeasement and mediating kind,
as the example only works in areas with a low population per square mile ratio.
Nope. There are places on the planet where nuclear would be a bad choice. Not many, but it only takes one to do the null hypothesis on One-Size-Fits-All.
I have nothing but complaints regarding this analysis. The “all of the above strategy” combined with open ended tax subsidies is a recipe for tremendous overbuilding of a power system. The end result of that is a capacity factor that declines with each new renewable addition to the grid. As the capacity factor declines invested capital provides less utility to the customer per unit investment, but added expense to the utilities — who really don’t care as long as they can pass costs on to their ratepayers. It becomes a vicious circle.
Take the so-called coal dominated states and regress average price per kWhr against capacity factor and you shall see what a poor capacity factor does. California, a natural gas dominated state, has the poorest system capacity factor in the nation and very high prices.
Good points, Kevin. Thanks for weighing in on this issue.
It is mazing that the plot Nick uses, below, to argue that wind lowers prices is the same plot others use to show that wind raises prices. Something is logically suspect!
The problem is that local pricing is a dog’s breakfast of factors.
Better just plot price against wind use:
Good lord. You have mixed every fruit in the basket to compare. I’ve been through this exercise. It is extremely difficult to figure out why rates are what they are. There are all sorts of local factors. That’s why I said to just look at coal because the impact of capacity factor is clear in that instance. Totally murky otherwise.
Look at Iowa versus Wyoming. Wyoming had very low rates, and a system capacity factor of 70% prior to adding wind. Now this added wind has an annual capacity factor of 36% and utilization of coal plants, which are used heavily to balance the wind, has fallen to the point that overall capacity factor is 43%. Our rates have risen to now rival Iowa.
How is the wind generation balanced in Iowa? Or in North Dakota? How is this balancing power delivered? Does it cross state lines? In South Dakota there is a lot of hydro power on the Missouri river probably balancing wind. Hydro power is very cheap and is the only reason that WA, ID, and OR all have power rates as low as the lower ones in the country. Louisiana has very low power rates due to cheap natural gas. All the answers to these questions matter, and your graph provides not one of those answers.
“Now this added wind has an annual capacity factor of 36% and utilization of coal plants”
Pointless comparing capacity factors like this. The cost of low CF depends on the capital cost of the equipment. Wind turbines are low cost; as for the cost of coal plants, well, it doesn’t really matter, because we aren’t going to build any more.
The prices I quoted are from EIA. Of course the graph doesn’t tell you why they are that way – graphs can never do that. But they do tell the key thing – SD power is at the bottom end of the cost range, and is robust. That is what matters to customers.
“Wind turbines are low cost”
Especially when you don’t count the subsidies and all the dead birds.
If they are low cost, then why can’t we eliminate subsidies for wind generation along with the “must buy” requirements?
OK, Here, from EIA, is a plot of capacity factor over time. I can’t see much to be learnt from it. CF for gas, coal and wind are all around 40%. They haven’t changed very much since 2014 (when there was little wind generation).
Why are you presenting South Dakota data when the topic was Wyoming?
“Wyoming had very low rates, and a system capacity factor of 70% prior to adding wind. Now this added wind has an annual capacity factor of 36% and utilization of coal plants, which are used heavily to balance the wind, has fallen to the point that overall capacity factor is 43%. Our rates have risen to now rival Iowa.”
Nor did you address the assertion of correlation between the decrease in overall system capacity factor from 70% to 43% vs a corresponding increase in consumer price.
The lead topic was South Dakota.
FFS just read the analysis and use your brain
https://www.eia.gov/states/SD/analysis
Here lets break out the key bits and see if we can get it thru to you
1.)South Dakota has no significant proved crude oil reserves and no oil refineries, but it does have a small amount of crude oil production
2.) South Dakota does not have any significant proved natural gas reserves, and with fewer than 100 producing wells, natural gas production in the state is modest
3.) South Dakota’s tribal lands have some of the best onshore wind resources in the nation. Four of the nation’s top five reservations with the greatest wind-powered electricity generation potential are in South Dakota
4.) Four of the six major hydroelectric dams along the Missouri River are located in South Dakota.
Given it’s small population and those facts it’s pretty straight forward what will happen if you let market forces work.
Oh wow look what happened
South Dakota does not have a renewable portfolio standard that mandates utilities obtain a certain amount of their electricity or power sales from renewable energy sources. The state did have a voluntary renewable portfolio goal that called for 10% of the state’s electricity sales by 2015 to be generated from renewables. Many, but not all, of South Dakota’s electricity providers met that goal
So all you are seeing is if you let market forces operate you get the lowest cost generation.
The problem with you left tards is you don’t want to let market forces operate because of your green fairytale. You want to ban FF and mandate renewables and when the costs blow up you try smoke and mirrors. If FF gets cheaper or they have a reserve then South Dakota market forces will have no problem burning it which is how it should be.
and as of 2023, 36% of the states power needs were met with coal and another 10% from natural gas.
Wind power only made up 18+%.
Give the disparity between generation and consumption, subsidy mining is a valid argument.
The comment was specific and valid for comparison, and you replied with a red herring. par for the course with you.
—
South Dakota imports 50% of their electricity.
As noted before, that is wind generation, NOT wind USE.
It is wind generation, in MWh, as a fraction of total generation, in MWh. How would you quantify wind use?
You are the one to conflate generation with use. Justify that conflation.
It isn’t conflation – it is definition. I have explained how I quantify wind use. I believe it is standard, How would you do it?
No, your graph chart is price per unit of consumption, against total generation.Yet you stated in the post that it was price against, and I quote, “wind use”. Please explain this conflation.
As both the graph heading and x-axis marking tell you, it is price against wind generation as a % of total generation, just as I explained above.
yes, so then either you were either deliberately misleading, or you didn’t understand what you were posting. Neither is a good look.
If the price doesn’t reflect all the costs (meaning subsidies of all sorts)- then a comparison of % of wind against price is a fallacy.
In a business landscape that includes constraint payments, total generation indicates very little about the actual market at all.
This chart helps explain in visual terms how exporting intermittency of power is essential for wind resource areas. Of course, it says nothing about who paid to get that expensive transmission to nowhere built or what the knock-on costs were to those other regions factoring in this extra intermittency.
The problem for HI, ME, VT, CA, NY is the limited potential to spread the intermittency cost effects to others. Maybe they need to build transatlantic undersea cables to South Africa with a Paris Agreement funding source!
ONLY wind. Got it.
But you’re assuming that these states plan to continue to add renewables to their grids. I think the key point is “fit for purpose” and South Dakota, as an example, is best suited to decide what fits best there. Not a bunch of pinheaded bureaucrats in DC. That’s the primary objective. Get DC out of local decisions.
I am not assuming anything going forward. What I am saying is that states with a lot of wind already and using coal or gas to balance have poor capacity factor. California which has a huge contribution from solar for a few hours at midday burns a lot of natural gas to balance. The CAISO system capacity factor is 25%. It will get worse as more wind and solar are added.
California is an outlier. Clearly nuts. But your point is fair.
and still imports around 25% of it’s electricity.
So let’s see, I have a car called wind that I can drive during periods of high demand (rush hours – 6:00 am – 9:00 am) less than 3 days every two weeks. So I have a backup car called solar that can only be driven less than half the time and only during good weather. Those times often don’t cover the high demand times when wind doesn’t work. So I need a third car called battery. It runs out of juice in 3 or 4 hours and doesn’t provide the coverage I need. So I have to have a 4th car called gas powered car. It operates 24/7 and meets my demands at all times. So, I have pay capital costs, operating costs, insurance, fuel for all 4 of those vehicles. Year sure that is less expensive than just having that one reliable vehicle.
👍
“ fuel for all 4 of those vehicles”
No, you don’t pay for fuel for wind, solar or battery.
Huh?
Fuel is free?
Even if you mean a solar power that directly runs the motor (like a solar powered calculator), how many solar panels on the car would it take to move it an inch?
Directly moved by wind like sailboats? All the roads would need to be widened to allow a car to tack against the wind.
Battery only?
How much would the batteries cost? How were were they charged to begin with?
Even if they were “free”, how practical would they be?
As SwedeTex said, “So I have to have a 4th car called gas powered car. It operates 24/7 and meets my demands at all times.”
“how many solar panels on the car would it take to move it an inch”
SwedeTex’s cars were not literal. But FWIW, there has been a solar car race across Australia since 1987!
Sunshine and wind are natural presences, sure.
And when they’re present, they can be applied to various purposes –
(sailing, flying kites, gliders, drying out salted fish, starting melanomas, etc etc)
But the main problem with trying to lock them in as essential energy resources is that w & s are UNRELIABLE resources, certainly not fit for purpose as essential utility-scale dispatchable electricity supply energy sources.
Geez, advice is another resource that is abundant and comes free, but like w & s, most of it is worth what you pay for it –
s.f.a.
The main problem with trying to lock them in as essential energy resources is there is no way to directly store wind or solar energy. You cannot show up with a jerrycan full of sunshine.
Yes you do. It’s included in the subsidy cost, tax funds to cover reliability (see Texas Energy Fund). May not pay Mother Nature directly but the costs are there
If wind and solar were as cheap as Nick is paid to believe, they wouldn’t need subsidies and mandates in order to survive and make their owners rich. In fact power companies would be falling all over themselves to build as much of both as they could.
Yes. Nick is an economic and finance illiterate among other things.
This will stun you, Nick, but fuel costs are a surprisingly small contributor. I have spoken to operators of modern, coal fired, supercritical or near super coal plants. Electricity delivered for 2-3 cents per kWhr as long as they run near 70% or even higher capacity factor and don’t have a huge fuel transportation cost. Wind costs around 6 cents per kWhr. The reason being that a wind plant won’t exceed more than about 35% capacity factor on an annual basis and thus has a lot less to deliver than the coal plant of equivalent nameplate.
In the utility business of figuring rate schedules this represents a volumetric problem or volumetric risk.
Now once the coal plant is forced to balance wind, and its capacity factor goes to 35% too, then it faces the volumetric issue as well, and the over-all cost to the rate schedule rises. This is how wind raises system costs. There is no magic about it.
This has all been explained to Nick many times. He’s not interested in hearing anything other than what he’s paid to hear.
“This has all been explained to Nick many times.”
OK, now explain it to South Dakota.
SD voted 62% for Trump. Seems they like his anti green energy perspective and policies.
58% wind
South Dakota is explained in the analysis of your own link and I dot pointed it above. It doesn’t support your argument it counters it because South Dakota let market forces operate.
So straight question are you happy to let market forces operate even if that means burning FF because that is the most economic thing to do … YES/NO?
“This will stun you, Nick, but fuel costs are a surprisingly small contributor”
For both gas and coal, fuel cost is about 2c/KWh. Supercritical coal might shave 10% off that. Wholesale electricity prices are in the range 3-5 c/KWh. So it is a big component.
Posted in full below.
To get an order of magnitude answer From Eraring Energy’s annual report we have 6,084,945 tonnes of coal consumed per year (specifically in 2008/9) and the current price according to Trading Economics its $109.55 per tonne.
That makes the annual expenditure over $600M
Electricity sales were reported as $634.6M for that same year.
Now obviously Eraring doesn’t pay the spot price for coal, its considerably lower but this example makes a nonsense of your argument that fuel costs are “surprisingly small contributors” to generation costs. They’re just not.
Ironically this has been explained to MarkW with worked examples from actual companies more than once but he hasn’t changed his faulty opinion or even attempted to provide any counter examples whatsoever.
I said if the coal didn’t have excessive transportation costs. Powder River Basin coal sells for $15.00 per tonne at the minehead. It is $0.83 per MMBtu on an energy basis. It’s one-fourth the price of natural gas! Build the power plant where the coal is.
The bottom line is that you and Nick are just helping me make the point that utility prices are a dog’s breakfast of factors. The price of fuel is a small component of system costs, which is largely what rates are based on. There are other factors like taxes and fees and special assessments. The rate that payers see includes all of this.
Even if I allow the cost of fuel to be 2 cents per kWhr as you say, which is confounded by transportation costs in the first place, and the current average U.S. price for the commodity (electrical energy) is around 17 cents per kWhr, then fuel costs are what? Twelve percent of the commodity cost?
“if the coal didn’t have excessive transportation costs”
TTTM’s example was Eraring, for which the supplying mines are within a few km. Much of the coal is transported by conveyor belt.
…Fossil fuel generation has fuel cost set by markets, transport and availability and will grow in line with inflation and scarcity.
Wind and Solar have zero fuel costs.
And we get back to the old fuel nonsense.
The biggest problem with wind and solar is that they take lots of money to build per MW. They need much more to maintain than do fossil fuel power and nuclear and finally, they don’t last anywhere near as long.
The second greatest problem is that they are not reliable. As a result, you still need to build as much fossil/nuclear power as you would have, had you not built any wind/solar. And because of the need to take over on short notice, these power sources need to be kept on warm to hot standby, so as a result, there is no saving in cost and precious little savings in fuel use.
The end result is that adding wind and solar to your grid mix adds nothing but costs and has no benefit whatsoever.
Third greatest problem is environmental devastation.
You do have to pay for maintenance and wear.
Sophistry.
A snippet of the line:
“So, I have pay capital costs, operating costs, insurance, fuel for all 4 of those vehicles.”
Anyone with basic language skills understands that the list applies to all 4, even if a specific item does not apply to one or another. Nor does the statement claim all of the listed items are identical for each vehicle.
Arizona (if that’s who you are referring to) doesn’t have the outage risks others do so a small battery set up might fit well. Peak demand likely coincides with peak sun. The only risk is that period when the sun goes down yet the temps have not.
Arizona isn’t heading down the EV requirement path, I don’t think, so that added stress doesn’t exist.
Arizona’s problem is California refineries closing. They get large amounts of refined products from CA. Unless they get Kinder Morgan to double capacity of its products pipeline from Gulf Coast refineries (along with capacity expansion there) they are going to struggle to get gas, jet and diesel.
Peak demand doesn’t coincide with peak sun. I had an argument with another person about this on a radio interview last month. Peak sun occurs at midday 1300 hours for daylight time. Peak demand occurs at slightly different times of day for various reasons, but CAISO in August it peaks around 2000 to 2100. In Florida peak August demand is 1700 to 1800, but peak natural gas usage is 2100 to 2200.
The interesting part of Arizona is only 13% solar will all of that desert. My real point is let the locations figure this out, with their own cash, and keep DC out of it. If it works for Arizona, great. When it doesn’t, don’t come running to others for cash. Pipe-dream, I know.
I agree with you, and then the strategy wouldn’t be all of the above, but be better labeled as “best of the above.”
Here are a couple of adjustment/corrections.
The utility execs in AZ still refer to peak daily demand being after peak sun. That’s why they offer rate plans to defer some appliance usage and EV charging away from the early evening hours.
Yes, the California refinery closures are a big risk for AZ refined fuels markets, but the planning and routing for the Phillips Petroleum line routed down from the Texas panhandle past Lubbock to El Paso and over to AZ is moving through approval steps (without California interference). Look it up.
I still gave your comment a +1 for effort.
I’d been thinking of an example using just two cars — one ICE and the other an EV just to save on carbon emissions. No can can argue that there won’t be some savings on fuel as the EV can charge cheaply as long as there is cheap electric service. But no one can claim that owning the two cars makes for lower transportation costs because both cars need licensing, insurance, maintenance, etc. Total transportation costs are akin to what ratepayers have to cover.
There is also the cost of buying two cars, one of which is more expensive and won’t last as long as the other.
Grids were perfectly stable prior to any attempts to add wind and solar. Wind and solar do not add stability, the only thing they add is cost.
There is no reason to add wind and solar and many reasons not to.
Getting rid of wind and solar completely is the only rational solution.
but.. but.. it’s all about salvation- saving the planet! /s
This article hits the issue squarely on the head. Consumers want consistent, reliable and affordable energy sources, so whatever combination meets those criteria is the one they’re willing to support. Never mind the scare tactics employed by the increasingly desperate climate alarmists who want to wring more taxes and higher prices out of the public, industries, corporations, etc. to supposedly save the planet and civilization. Those have been surviving for long before any climate change theories were invented. Just keep the lights on and the heat flowing.
The real question here is “price”. If these states use market based decisions for infrastructure the price component needs to be included. Reliability is important but you don’t want to mortgage the farm to get it.
Someone ought to report to the authorities this flagrant outbreak of common sense.
So my question is how much of the wind energy generated in South Dakota is exported out of state?
SoDak exports between 30 and 50% of the electricity it generates.
https://www.eia.gov/states/SD/data/dashboard/electricity
Per this article SoDak exports roughly half of its electricity
https://www.gridinfo.com/south-dakota
and at least as late as 2023 coal accounted for thee largest share of power consumed in the state (36 %)
file:///C:/Users/Me/Downloads/2023Consumptionchart.pdf
Indeed, there is 40tWhr generated in S. Dak. each year of which only 20 tWhr is consumed in-state. 50% is exported. It is very difficult to figure out what “causes” power rates when one cannot even identify what loads are being serviced by one-half the generation.
https://www.eia.gov/states/SD/analysis
South Dakota imports 50% of its electricity.
Interesting contradiction by the same authority;
I could not find on your first link how much electricity SoDak imports or exports.
“In South Dakota, the number one source of electricity is wind (58%), followed by hydropower (22%) and natural gas (11%), with coal and other sources making up the remainder. When working together, these sources make South Dakota’s grid the 2nd most reliable in the country.”
Well, if the $$$ spend on that wind had been spent on any ff power generation, wouldn’t their grid be even more reliable- maybe #1? If so, then it was a mistake and no need to say nice things about it.
“…. no energy source should be sidelined because of rhetoric that doesn’t reflect conditions on the ground. A stable power grid requires a mix of energy sources working together as efficiently as possible – in other words, “all of the above.”
Mr. nice guy wants to be nice to everyone and all energy sources. Almost sounds woke about it. If a state already has some wind and solar, I suppose it’s just as well to keep using it until it soon fails- but his implication is that it might be fine to keep installing more of the same as a partial solution. Let’s see how much wind and solar gets installed once ruinables are no longer on welfare.
after the disastrous ice storm URI when Texas (40 million people) was getting over 40% from wind and solar both of which shut down in the storm, killing over 300 and millions wo power for over a week, the state thankfully changed its grid back to mostly coal and gas (80%) with no issues in the current massive ice storm
I point I often try to make, using the Texas Feb 2021 disaster, is that there is no power more expensive than power which doesn’t show up when it is needed the most. The Dallas FED figured the losses of that storm within ERCOT as $130 billion. There are higher estimates by others, but just spread $130B over 27,000,000 customers in ERCOT and you have $4,800 per customer. For me that is about 5 years worth of electrical service charges.
IOW, natural gas power. Texas regulators/grid managers already knew that wind would not be available for these parts/ten thousand conditions. But they let the natural gas/electric infrastructure produce with little of the equipment and processes that colder states incorporate. I.e:
Read for yourself:
https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/final-report-february-2021-freeze-underscores-winterization-recommendations
Today’s final report provides more details:
The title is misleading, the article is about a few ‘Rural Red states’ not all red states!
Note that the extra cost to taxpayers for building new, expensive transmission lines to nowhere is omitted and yet they are out there. Some were built (NM/AZ) and some were stopped in the planning (cheerleading) phase (AR). Some were stopped even in the face of DC pushing to bypass the state/authorities involved (Obama).