Renewables Are Leaving Natural Gas In The Dust This Year

[ScienceRocks]

Renewables Are Leaving Natural Gas In The Dust This Year
by Joe Romm May 16, 2016 4:09 pm


CREDIT: Nati Harnik, AP

Tweet
In the first three months of 2016, the U.S. grid added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity. It added a whopping 1,291 megawatts (MW) of new renewables.

The renewables were primarily wind (707 MW) and solar (522 MW). We also added some biomass (33 MW) and hydropower (29 MW). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” reports that no new capacity of coal, oil, or nuclear power were added in the first quarter of the year.

So the U.S. electric grid added more than 70 times as much renewable energy capacity as natural gas capacity from January to March.

Of course, generating capacity is often quite different from the amount of power generated, since fossil fuel plants generally are used for considerably higher percentage of the time (their “capacity factor”). That’s why renewables now make up 18 percent of total U.S. installed generating capacity — but only about 14 percent of our total power production.

On the other hand, FERC doesn’t track rooftop solar, so its estimate of solar capacity added is certainly low. Indeed, FERC’s data sources only “include plants with nameplate capacity of 1 MW or greater,” so it’s hard to know how much small-scale renewable power generation they may have missed.

It is increasingly clear that we don’t need to add significant amounts of any new grid capacity that isn’t renewable for the foreseeable future. In part that’s because demand for utility power generation has been flat for almost a decade — and should continue plateauing for quite some time — thanks to rapidly growing energy efficiency measures (and, to a much lesser extent, thanks to recent increases in rooftop solar).

We also know that renewable power — both new wind and solar — is now winning bids for new generation around the world without subsidies. Some bids are coming in at under four cents per kilowatt hour!

Studies from NOAA and others — and real-world examples around the globe, such as Germany — show that the U.S. can absorb vastly greater percentages of renewables than we currently have, just with existing technology. Yet NOAA’s research shows that, with nothing more than an improved national transmission system, “a transition to a reliable, low-carbon, electrical generation and transmission system can be accomplished with commercially available technology and within 15 years.”

Kicking ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Throw enough tax dollars at something, people will do stupid things.

Of course, generating capacity is often quite different from the amount of power generated, since fossil fuel plants generally are used for considerably higher percentage of the time

Wait one minute! You're telling me that unreliable "green energy" is unreliable? LOL!

 

[elektra]

From Thinkprogress? Well with Clinton adviser John Podesta behind it with the help of George Soros, we know this story is about as trustworthy as Bill Clinton in a roomful of young interns.

This is where the Renewable energy advocates go for propaganda, George Soros and Thinkprogress

Center for American Progress | Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda | Activist FactsActivist Facts
The Center for American Progress (CAP) and its parallel advocacy arm the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP Action) are two key cogs in the left-wing policy and message machine. Using the institutional imprimatur of CAP’s “think tank” and CAP Action’s blog ThinkProgress, CAP’s directors and funders — who include left-wing hedge fund titan George Soros — attempt to move national policy debates ever leftward.

Founded by the well-connected John Podesta, who was the former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and Obama’s Presidential Transition director

ThinkProgress [… is] hardly just another media organization. […] Further, CAP Action Fund openly runs political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party’s infrastructure, and the new reporting staff down the hall isn’t exactly walled off from that message machine, nor does it necessarily keep its distance from liberal groups organizing advocacy campaigns targeting conservatives.

CAP and ThinkProgress are well-funded: CAP alone raked in $36.5 million in 2010, the latest year for which tax records are available. CAP Action, which runs ThinkProgress, brought in over $9 million to fund its operations.

That money comes from a wide array of left-leaning ideological and big corporate interests. Although CAP and CAP Action exercise their legal rights as organizations structured under Sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and do not disclose their donors, some donations can be identified through other required filings with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor.

CAP receives money from multibillionaire hedge fund manager George Soros through two of his nonprofit groups, the Foundation to Support Open Society and the Open Society Institute. From 2005 through 2010, the two organizations gave CAP over $5.4 million. CAP receives money from other liberal-leaning foundations, including the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the foundation of Progressive Insurance chairman Peter B. Lewis.

 

[elektra]

Yet, why would we need to add more Natural Gas, when all the Natural Gas added last year, is adequate? At the same time, Solar and Wind are failing and the only solution is to add more, and build them bigger.

Natural Gas works, hence you will not see new Natural Gas every quarter. You only have to install one Natural Gas plant and you have more power than all the Wind Power and Solar installed in the first quarter of 2016.

 

[alpine]

One should be really mentally challenged to see anything wrong with his/her country expanding and diversifying her energy resources.

This is a good thing for the country...

 

[elektra]

One should be really mentally challenged to see anything wrong with his/her country expanding and diversifying her energy resources.

This is a good thing for the country...

And how much money was spent and what will this do to our electric bills? If you can not answer that question, then your idea is based on your imagination and nothing more.

 

[alpine]

One should be really mentally challenged to see anything wrong with his/her country expanding and diversifying her energy resources.

This is a good thing for the country...

And how much money was spent and what will this do to our electric bills? If you can not answer that question, then your idea is based on your imagination and nothing more.

What does it do to your electric bill?

You are still living in the richest county on this planet,
and using one of the cheapest electricity among industrialized nations

What do you want? Free electricity?

 

[elektra]

What does it do to your electric bill?

You are still living in the richest county on this planet,
and using one of the cheapest electricity among industrialized nations

What do you want? Free electricity?

Nice argument, how much did this cost our nation, this amount of renewable power? Why won't that question be answered by the OP? By you.

You really do not know a thing about what you advocate.

 

[alpine]

What does it do to your electric bill?

You are still living in the richest county on this planet,
and using one of the cheapest electricity among industrialized nations

What do you want? Free electricity?

Nice argument, how much did this cost our nation, this amount of renewable power? Why won't that question be answered by the OP? By you.

You really do not know a thing about what you advocate.

You already asked a question; "how all this will impact my electricity bill?"

And I gave you the answer; you are paying the lowest electricity bill among industrialized nations



Which means; it either don't have an impact, or a positive impact if there are any...

 

[elektra]

What does it do to your electric bill?

You are still living in the richest county on this planet,
and using one of the cheapest electricity among industrialized nations

What do you want? Free electricity?

Nice argument, how much did this cost our nation, this amount of renewable power? Why won't that question be answered by the OP? By you.

You really do not know a thing about what you advocate.

You already asked a question; "how all this will impact my electricity bill?"
And I gave you the answer; you are paying the lowest electricity bill among industrialized nations
Which means; it either don't have an impact, or a positive impact if there are any...

Electric Rates going up is a positive impact? How so?

 

[elektra]

Matthew, how come you won't answer how much this Renewable Energy cost? I see you are active in your thread, rating the nonsensical posts. How about answering a real question, just once, how much did it cost.

And which projects came online, without actually telling us the project names, this thread sounds like industry propaganda.

 

[Old Rocks]

Flap your silly yap as much as you wish. Wind and solar are impressing the people that count. And they are investing in it. While you are just pissing into the wind.

The increases in the cost of electricity have been less since gas and renewables are a major part of the mix than when coal was the major source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One should be really mentally challenged to see anything wrong with his/her country expanding and diversifying her energy resources.

This is a good thing for the country...

Why is diversifying into more expensive, less reliable energy a good thing?

 

[Old Rocks]

Look at the graphs at the bottom of this article, you can readily see that the increases in the cost of electricity have been less as we used less coal.

Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

[Old Rocks]

One should be really mentally challenged to see anything wrong with his/her country expanding and diversifying her energy resources.

This is a good thing for the country...

Why is diversifying into more expensive, less reliable energy a good thing?

Because it has led to smaller percentage increases in the cost of electricity.

Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look at the graphs at the bottom of this article, you can readily see that the increases in the cost of electricity have been less as we used less coal.

Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Fracking has been very beneficial.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One should be really mentally challenged to see anything wrong with his/her country expanding and diversifying her energy resources.

This is a good thing for the country...

Why is diversifying into more expensive, less reliable energy a good thing?

Because it has led to smaller percentage increases in the cost of electricity.

Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Fracking has. "Green energy" has led to larger increases.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really?

As part of a resource plan approved by city officials in 2014, Austin Energy must procure 55 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025. The utility plans to build 600 megawatts of utility-scale solar projects in the next few years in order to meet the target.

In March of last year, Recurrent Energy signed a 25-year deal with Austin Energy to deliver electricity from a 150-megawatt solar plant for just under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. It was a landmark contract. But today, more than a thousand megawatts of projects are coming in for 20 percent cheaper.

"These bids are without question the cheapest bids ever seen in a utility solar solicitation," said Cory Honeyman, a senior analyst with GTM Research.

This price trend is a mixed blessing for developers and the utility. It shows that Austin Energy will be able to meet its 600-megawatt target with competitive PV resources. But Shalabi also said the company has "a little bit of buyer's remorse" when bids came down 20 percent after signing the 150-megawatt contract with Recurrent.

Yes, solar prices are coming down so quickly that a 5-cent contract can induce buyer's remorse.

Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

Looks to me that solar and wind are a major factor in the decreasing of the price increases.

 

[Old Rocks]

Texas is not a state known for widespread environmental sentiment, and unlike California is also not known for wide-eyed visionaries in the field of energy. For over a century oil and gas have played a strong role in the economy of this “deep-red” state.


Nor are grid operators typically given to bombastic predictions. Thus, when the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) predicts that deployed solar PV inside Texas' grid will grow 50-fold in the next 15 years, this is a strong indicator for the future of the technology.


ERCOT made the prediction that 13 GW of solar would be installed by 2030 as its “baseline” case in a report released today. It is against this baseline that ERCOT analyzed probable impacts of various options of compliance with the Obama Administration's new regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan (CPP).



Read more: Texas grid operator predicts 50-fold increase in solar by 2030

Looks as if the people who count believe that solar has a very strong future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really?

As part of a resource plan approved by city officials in 2014, Austin Energy must procure 55 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025. The utility plans to build 600 megawatts of utility-scale solar projects in the next few years in order to meet the target.

In March of last year, Recurrent Energy signed a 25-year deal with Austin Energy to deliver electricity from a 150-megawatt solar plant for just under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. It was a landmark contract. But today, more than a thousand megawatts of projects are coming in for 20 percent cheaper.

"These bids are without question the cheapest bids ever seen in a utility solar solicitation," said Cory Honeyman, a senior analyst with GTM Research.

This price trend is a mixed blessing for developers and the utility. It shows that Austin Energy will be able to meet its 600-megawatt target with competitive PV resources. But Shalabi also said the company has "a little bit of buyer's remorse" when bids came down 20 percent after signing the 150-megawatt contract with Recurrent.

Yes, solar prices are coming down so quickly that a 5-cent contract can induce buyer's remorse.

Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

Looks to me that solar and wind are a major factor in the decreasing of the price increases.

Really?

Yes, really.

In March of last year, Recurrent Energy signed a 25-year deal with Austin Energy to deliver electricity from a 150-megawatt solar plant for just under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

It's true, less reliable energy is worth less.