Energy Policy

From: Eurasia Review

By: Dr. Lars Schernikau

Date: January 17, 2024

The ‘Energy Trilemma’ And The Cost Of Electricity – OpEd

Why “Renewables” cannot save but cost Billions

Over the last 150 years, abundant electricity from coal and gas led to an unprecedented reduction in poverty, as well as an increase in longevity and health. Currently, these low cost, reliable power sources generate approximately 60% of electricity and 50% of primary energy worldwide. Primarily due to climate change concerns, coal and gas fuels are now slowly replaced by ‘renewables’, such as wind and solar based energy. But this comes with a cost.

Bloomberg issued their latest global Levelized Cost of Electricity (1) (LCOE) analysis in 2023, comparing the historical LCOE of various ‘renewables’ with the cost of coal, gas, and nuclear, drawing a misleading conclusion of wind and solar being most cost-effective (Figure 1). LCOE based reports and analyses also by other organizations such as IEA, IRENA, IEEFA, IMF, Agora, form the basis for many governments to mistakenly conclude that the transition from a coal and gas based power system to wind and solar will save billions, if not trillions at global scale.

Political decision makers know the three pillars of a successful energy policy (a) reliability, (b) affordability, and (c) environmental sustainability. But when taking a closer look, it becomes apparent that, power ministries are struggling to find a balance within this ‘Energy Trilemma’ and moreover, that the three pillars follow a specific priority:

As a prime concern, access to reliable energy is needed, before considering the affordability thereof. Once the balance between reliable and affordable energy is achieved, only then environmental sustainability can be tackled in a meaningful way.

Claiming “renewable” energy from wind and solar is cheap and comes without environmental consequences, is a crucial and detrimental energy economic misunderstanding.(continue reading)

The ‘Energy Trilemma’ And The Cost Of Electricity – OpEd

From: Climate Etc.

By: Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)

Date: February 16, 2024

Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II

“Renewables”:  some resources support a healthy grid, other challenge it

The first part of this series discussed some of the shortcomings of the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy.  Renewable generation resources are not necessarily sustainable or environmentally sound and non-renewable options can be clean and highly sustainable.  For example, you will find many ardent environmentalist groups strongly opposed to “renewable” biomass generation. Similarly, more and more environmentalists are dropping their objections to “nonrenewable” nuclear power. For those who are concerned with the health of the planet as well as those who want to use the earth for human flourishing the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy is losing relevance. Referring generally to “renewable” and “nonrenewable”  resources or structuring policy to favor renewable does more harm than good as we face the complicate challenges ahead in maintain an adequate electric power supply in an environmentally responsible manner.

This posting examines the impacts of various generation alternatives s on the power system and the electric grid.   Renewable resources do not have a general impact on the grid; impacts vary by resource type. The various renewable resources alternatives available today differ greatly in how they impact the grid and should not be clustered.  Hydro resources with storage for example, work well to support the electric grid.  In fact, it may be the best resource available considering the varied needs of the major grids. Demanding loads that stress the system are often best located near hydro resources.  Other “renewable” resources to a greater or lesser extent may  present challenges to the operation of the grid and grid reliability.  In assessing the challenges of changing resources,  reports  that a particular grid is operating with 80% renewables may be impressive or virtually meaningless.  Of course, a grid can function well depending on 80% hydro resources, or 78% hydro and 2% wind and solar.  That’s very different and much less challenging than operating a grid with a penetration level of 40% wind and solar. Let’ look at some of the important characteristics of generation resources and how they differ among resource types. (continue reading)

Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II

Many electricity customers in all customer classes have fossil fueled emergency or standby generators which they use to power some or all of their electrical loads in the event of a grid power outage. For some commercial customers, such as hospitals, standby power systems are essential to assure the safety of patients such as those undergoing surgical procedures. For some industrial customers, such as those who operate continuous processes, standby generators are required to avoid loss of product in process or to avoid damage to equipment. For many other customers, emergency or standby generators are used to avoid the inconvenience of power outages.

The net zero energy economy would require elimination of these on-site fossil fueled generators since they are too small to justify implementation of carbon capture and storage systems to eliminate CO2 emissions. In some cases, on-site generation could be replaced by electricity storage systems, charged either by the grid or by on-site solar and/or wind generation.

State laws generally require that standby generators for hospitals must either be fueled by pipeline natural gas or supported by on-site fuel storage. The design process for these installations includes determination of the demands of essential electrical loads which are to be supported by the generator and the duration of the grid outage through which the system must be able to operate. This information is used to size the generator(s) and to determine the required on-site storage for other than pipeline-delivered fuels.

The design process would be similar for standby systems based on electric storage batteries. Battery system design would determine both the cumulative demand of the loads to be supported by the batteries and the cumulative power consumption of those loads over the expected duration of the grid outage. This design process must be conservative, since the batteries cannot be recharged during power outages. Also, these battery systems would require long-duration batteries capable of supporting the required loads during multiple day outages.

Some larger customers might negotiate with the grid operators to install grid scale storage capacity on their properties, with the understanding that the customers would have first call on the battery capacity in the event of a grid outage. However, that would require that battery capacity installed on the customer sites be long-duration and that it be first in line for recharging in the event of storage drawdown due to limited wind or solar generation output.

Some larger customers or groups of customers might choose to install small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) on-site. However, those customers would likely choose to use the SMRs as their primary source of electricity and to use the grid as backup or to supply loads which could be safely shed in the event of a grid outage.

An “all-electric everything” renewable plus storage grid is likely to be somewhat less reliable than the current predominantly fossil plus nuclear grid, especially during the period of rapid capacity and demand growth. This might lead greater numbers of customers to install on-site electricity storage systems.

From: Net Zero Watch

By: Ross Clark

Date: February 8, 2024

The Retreat from Net Zero

Introduction

The UN meetings on climate change have become renowned for their platitudes, with national leaders falling over each other to say what desparate straits the world is in, how we must decarbonise ever faster – before returning to their home countries and putting economic development well ahead of their promises to cut emissions. But the president of COP28 in Dubai in December 2023, Sultan Al Jaber, was unusually frank. Al Jaber, who also serves as the chair of Abu Dhabi state oil corporation, ADNOC, which recently announced a $150 billion investment to increase oil production by nearly 50 percent to 5 million barrels a day by 2027, appealed to former Irish President Mary Robinson: ‘show me a road map for the phase out of fossil fuel that allows for social, sustainable development…unless you want to take the world back into caves’.

Al Jaber was eviscerated for his comments, yet they were in tune with a silent majority. An analysis by the website Zero Tracker reveals that even countries with net zero targets are heavily resisting pressure to phase out exploration for and development of fossil fuel resources. There are 93 oil-producing countries that have net zero targets, but only six of them have plans to phase out oil. Only five out of 94 gas-producing countries with a net zero target have plans to phase out gas. As for coal-producing countries, only 65 of those with net zero targets have plans to stop production.

As always with COP meetings, the event ended with a communiqué promising that the world would try to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels – which is a long way from agreeing to phase them out by a certain date, as many activists demanded. After two weeks and several hundred thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide spewed out by private jets and the like, the 98,000 delegates who had signed up for COP28 had come up with nothing more than an empty promise.

In fact, the list of countries with plans to phase out fossil fuels is showing few signs of growing. The new government in New Zealand has just reneged on the previous administration‘s pledge to do so. In Germany, Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck recently announced that he may delay the country’s planned phase-out of coal by 2030 because of the energy crisis provoked by the invasion of Ukraine.(continue reading)

The Retreat from Net Zero

Much has been written regarding the effects of the “energy transition” on energy cost, availability, reliability and the structure and operation of the electric grid. Those are all important issues. All are fraught with degrees of uncertainty, since there has not been a successful demonstration of a renewable plus storage grid anywhere and there are no plans to conduct such a demonstration.

Little has been written about the effects of the “energy transition” on the lives of individuals and families who would be totally dependent on the electric grid for their energy needs. These effects would vary significantly depending on the local climate and also on local population density.

Residents of the northern plains, upper Midwest and New England are regularly subjected to harsh winters during which ambient temperatures can drop to as much as 125°F below body temperature. Residents of the southern tier of the US are regularly subjected to hot summers in which ambient temperatures can reach as much as 25°F above body temperature. This difference in ambient temperature relative to body temperature is the underlying reason why cold temperatures contribute to approximately 10 times more deaths more deaths than hot temperatures.

Residents of areas frequently exposed to very low ambient winter temperatures typically use natural gas, propane or fuel oil for space and water heating since these sources are more reliable than the electric grid in severe weather conditions; and, because electric space and water heating is more expensive than the alternatives. The use of electric heat pump space and water heaters is not common because of the poor low temperature performance of typical heat pumps. However, the fossil fuel space and water heating equipment would no longer be available after the “energy transition”.

Many residents in colder climates rely on gasoline or diesel emergency generators or natural gas, propane or diesel standby generators to supply power in the event of a grid outage. However, these generators would no longer be available after the “energy transition”.

Residents in these colder climates would instead be required to rely on electric heat pumps designed for cold weather operation. These heat pumps are beginning to enter the market but are not yet broadly available. They would also be required to rely on batteries to meet their emergency power needs in the event of a grid outage.

The most common gas furnace capacity is 100,000 Btu/hr. A furnace of this heating capacity would require less than 0.5 kW to power its controls and circulating fan, so the furnace could operate continuously in extremely cold weather for one day on a battery capacity of approximately 12 kWh. The Tesla Powerwall has a rated capacity of 13.5 kWh, so a fully charged Powerwall could support a typical gas furnace for approximately a full day, at an installed cost of approximately $9,000 – 13,000.

An electric heat pump operating at very low ambient temperature, or the strip heaters used to back up the heat pump, would require an input of approximately 30 kW to match the output of the gas furnace, or approximately 60 times the electric input required to operate the gas furnace. The installed cost of the Tesla Powerwalls required to operate the heat pump or strip heaters continuously in extremely cold weather for one day would range from $500,000 – 700,000, well beyond the financial reach of most homeowners.

Clearly, the elimination of fossil fuel space and water heating and the elimination of fossil fuel emergency and standby generators would increase the likelihood of deaths caused by grid outages in extremely cold weather. US EPA estimates the value of a “statistical life” at approximately $10 million, so grid outages in extremely cold weather could have both a major human and a major financial cost, with no discernable benefit.

From: Forbes

By: Tilak Doshi

Date: January 29, 2024

The Folly Of Climate Leadership

Lessons of UK Energy Policy Failure

Citing an International Energy Agency report, The Daily Telegraph reported on Wednesday that UK electricity prices have risen faster than almost any other developed country since 2019. The price of electricity in the UK rose by 19 percent in 2023 alone, compared to the US where electricity prices have risen by 5 percent annually since 2019. Referencing a separate report from the House of Commons library, the same article finds that the price increases have been driven by taxes and levies linked to the country’s commitment to the “net zero” emissions target which made up almost a fifth of household electricity prices.

Rupert Darwall’s 76-page penetrating analysis of Britain’s energy policy, “The folly of climate leadership: Net Zero and Britain’s disastrous energy policies” with a foreword written by Andy Puzder was published last month by the RealClear Foundation. It provides the context necessary to understand how UK’s political elites practically sleep-walked the country into its binding net zero legislation. The follies of quixotic climate leadership are not Britain’s alone, as the Biden Administration took office three years ago as America’s first “environmental administration”. Mr. Darwall’s analysis provides an excellent assessment of the lessons of Britain’s failing energy policies for those of the Biden administration. Under Democrat leadership, the US government unleashed a tsunami of green subsidies under its misnamed Inflation Reduction Act to achieve its net zero targets.

Lies, Damn Lies and Wind Energy

Not to be outdone in its claims to global “climate leadership”, the UK Labour government under Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008 committed the country to a legally binding target of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 below the 1990 level. It was all the more remarkable that this policy target was implemented during the global Great Recession that began with the financial crisis in the United States in late 2007 and which lasted until mid-2009. (continue reading)

The Folly Of Climate Leadership

Previous commentaries (Government Responsibility, Renewables Responsibility and Grid Responsibility) dealt with the government, renewables industry and grid operator perceptions of their responsibilities regarding the proposed energy transformation.

Government, at all levels, apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is to establish the goals, set the timeline, pick the winning technologies and incentivize their market adoption. This perception led to Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, wind and solar generation, electric vehicles and a variety of incentives, subsidies and mandates.

The renewable energy industry apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is take maximum advantage of federal and state subsidies, incentives, preferences and mandates by installing as much generating capacity as the industry participants can finance and get connected to the grid. The industry also believes that the grid should accept all of its output whenever it is available. The opportunity the industry perceives is the result of Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, and the selection of wind and solar as the winning technologies.

The overall responsibility of the utilities, which own and operate the grid and much of the generating capacity which feeds the grid, and the ISOs and RTOs through which they coordinate their generation and transmission operations, is to assure reliable and economical electricity service Their operational and financial performance are overseen by state utility commissions and consumers’ counsels.

Energy users do not escape responsibility during the proposed energy transition. They are already responsible for paying higher electricity rates as a result of the redundant electricity generation investments required by the transition, which would likely continue to grow as the fraction of renewable generation on the grid increases.

Energy users would also be required to replace fossil fueled end use equipment with electric end use equipment as the transition to all-electric everything proceeds. Customers would be responsible not only for the cost of the replacement equipment, but also for the costs of building modifications necessary to accommodate the electric end use equipment. Many customer buildings would likely also require electric service upgrades to support the increased electricity demand. Many sections of the electric distribution grid would also likely require capacity upgrades, which would be reflected in customer bills.

Energy users might also be required to increase the thermal and electrical efficiency of their buildings to reduce energy demand and consumption. Building Green analyzed “The Challenge of Existing Homes: Retrofitting for Dramatic Energy Savings” several years ago. The intent of the energy transition is to accomplish what Building Green refers to as a major energy retrofit, which they estimated would incur an average cost of approximately $50,000 per dwelling unit. No such estimates are available for commercial, institutional and industrial buildings, though the average cost would be substantially greater than for residential dwelling units.

Many industrial fossil fuel energy end uses do not currently have alternative electric replacements. Customers and their equipment suppliers would be responsible for developing and installing electric alternatives. Their transition would require large distribution upgrades and, in some cases, transmission upgrades to serve the increased demand.

Vehicle owners would be required to replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with electric vehicles, which are currently significantly more expensive than ICE vehicles while offering diminished utility. Battery charging facilities for these electric vehicles would likely require additional customer electric service upgrades as well as distribution grid upgrades which would be reflected in customer electricity bills.

Government is also interested in “herding” individuals, families, businesses and service providers into “15-Minute Cities” to limit the need for personal travel. This would constitute a significant loss of personal freedom for many of those affected.

Much of the cost of the end user changes would likely be offset with government subsidies, which would appear to reduce end user direct costs, but would only transfer that portion of the costs to taxpayers, thus not reducing the societal costs of the changes, but likely increasing them, since the subsidies would be funded with new government interest-bearing debt.  

TANSTAAFL: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Previous commentaries (Renewables Responsibility and Government Responsibility) dealt with the government and renewables industry perceptions of their responsibilities regarding the proposed energy transformation.

Government, at all levels, apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is to establish the goals, set the timeline, pick the winning technologies and incentivize their market adoption. This perception led to Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, wind and solar generation, electric vehicles and a variety of incentives, subsidies and mandates.

The renewable energy industry apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is take maximum advantage of federal and state subsidies, incentives, preferences and mandates by installing as much generating capacity as the industry participants can finance and get connected to the grid. The industry also believes that the grid should accept all of its output whenever it is available. The opportunity the industry perceives is the result of Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, and the selection of wind and solar as the winning technologies.

The overall responsibility of the utilities, which own and operate the grid and much of the generating capacity which feeds the grid, and the ISOs and RTOs through which they coordinate their generation and transmission operations, is to assure reliable and economical electricity service. Their operational and financial performance are overseen by state utility commissions and consumers’ counsels.

The utilities are required to connect non-utility generators to the grid. Conventional non-utility generators have historically been subject to economic dispatch. However, the proposed energy transition has changed this process by requiring that the output of connected renewable generators, which cannot be dispatched at will, be taken whenever it is available and supplemented by electricity dispatched from both utility and non-utility generators to meet the contemporaneous demand on the grid. In situations in which the renewable generator output exceeds demand, the grid operators would be expected to store the excess electricity for later use.

As the fraction of subsidized renewable generation connected to the grid increases, the output of the conventional generation to the grid decreases, reducing the revenues to those generators and increasing the rates they must charge to remain profitable. However, the intermittency of the renewable generation requires that the conventional capacity remain operating, even at zero net output, to supply the grid demand when the renewable generation declines significantly or is unavailable. However, conventional generation is being retired far more rapidly than renewable generation is being added to the grid, reducing the capacity reserve margin available to meet peak demand and threatening grid stability and reliability.

The grid operators, which typically connected a relatively small number of relatively high-capacity dispatchable generators, are now required to connect a relatively large number of relatively low-capacity non-dispatchable generators, spread over a far larger geographic area. As the energy transition proceeds, the number of relatively low-capacity non-dispatchable generators would increase dramatically, rendering the continued operation of conventional generation uneconomical. Fossil fueled conventional generation would also be driven from the grid by government edict.

When the rating plate capacity of the connected renewable generation exceeds the capacity of the conventional generation, the grid operators would be required to add dispatchable electricity storage to the grid to satisfy grid demand when renewable generation is unavailable or inadequate. This storage capacity would be recharged using surplus renewable electricity when available, supplemented by conventional generation while available. However, as the conventional generation is retired, additional grid storage capacity would be required, and additional renewable generation capacity would be required to assure that grid storage capacity is charged and available as required.

The grid scale storage required by the energy transition is currently either extremely expensive (short duration) or unavailable (medium to long duration). This would make the grid operators’ responsibility to ensure reliable and economical electricity service very difficult to fulfill.

Finally, there has not been a successful demonstration of a stable and reliable renewable plus storage grid, so there remain questions about whether the grid operators’ responsibilities could be fulfilled.

The renewable energy industry apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is take maximum advantage of federal and state subsidies, incentives, preferences and mandates by installing as much generating capacity as the industry participants can finance and get connected to the grid. The industry also believes that the grid should accept all of its output whenever it is available. The opportunity the industry perceives is the result of Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, and the selection of wind and solar as the winning technologies. Would that life were so simple.

The renewable energy industry believes that it should be free to install its generation facilities at whatever locations and that the operators of the existing electric utility grid should be responsible for extending the grid to their facilities.

The renewable industry is aware that the output of its facilities varies minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, season-to-season, and year-to-year. The industry believes that it is the responsibility of the grid operator to smooth renewable generation output, to fill in the gaps when the generators are not operating, and to manage the generation of the difference between the available renewable energy and the contemporaneous demand on the grid.

The renewable energy industry is aware that the electricity it generates displaces energy which would otherwise have been generated by the conventional generators which serve the grid. The industry also recognizes that this displacement reduces the cumulative output and the revenues of the conventional generators, including utility owned generation. The renewable energy industry believes that this is not their problem; and, realizes that it actually benefits their industry by increasing the prices the conventional generators must charge to remain profitable, and thus the prices paid for their renewable energy as well.

The renewable energy industry is aware that, as conventional generators leave the grid as renewable generation increases, conventional generators age out or are required to cease operation by government edict or because their operation has become uneconomic, the gaps in renewable generation would have to be filled by withdrawals from electricity storage systems. The industry also realizes that the transition from conventional generation backup to storage backup would create demand for additional renewable generating capacity. The industry accepts no responsibility for the need for electricity storage to provide a stable and reliable grid.

The renewable energy industry understands that the expansion of intermittent generation of the electric utility grid adversely affects grid stability and reliability and complicates the effective management of the grid. However, the industry accepts no responsibility for these issues and places that responsibility solely on the grid operators.

The renewable energy industry also holds the grid operators responsible for the fact the  industry cannot get new renewable generating capacity connected to the grid as rapidly as it would like. Difficulties with receiving regulatory approvals for transmission grid expansion is viewed as not being the renewable energy industry’s responsibility.

FERC, NERC and several ISOs and RTOs have recognized the potential reliability issues facing the grid and have become more vocal regarding the need for caution as the energy transition proceeds.

With apologies to Ronald Reagan:
The renewable energy industry is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

From: Net Zero Watch

By: Andrew Montford

Date: January 26, 2024

Costing the Green Grid: Current and Future Technology

Executive summary

A recent Royal Society report claimed the electricity grid could be decarbonised without materially raising the cost per unit of electricity delivered (the ‘system cost’). The annual cost would be of the order of £30 billion. However, this conclusion relied on extraordinary input parameters:

• demand values that are very low, and hardly vary with temperature, apparently through use of an incorrect seasonal demand curve;
• highly optimistic cost and efficiency assumptions.

These assumptions included:

• 60% reduction in offshore wind capital cost
• 70% reduction in offshore wind operating costs
• 50% increase in offshore wind output • 30% reduction in solar capex
• 70% reduction in solar opex
• 90% reduction in electrolyser capex
• 45% increase in electrolyser efficiency
• 60% reduction in reciprocating engine capex
• 55% increase in reciprocating engine efficiency

compared to levels seen today. In order to deliver a decarbonised grid by 2050 at the overall cost stated in the report, these improvements would have to be delivered in the next 2–3 years.

The electricity system model presented in this paper reproduces the Royal Society’s results and then examines the effect of correcting the flaws.

• Using the correct seasonal demand curve increases costs by around  10%, to £33 billion per year. The latter figure represents around £1000 per household.
• Introducing interannual variability – that is, allowing for extra demand in cold years – increases annual spend to over £50 billion, or £1700 per household.
• Using assumptions representing current technology and costs,  but without allowing for interannual variability, increases annual spend to around £160 billion, or £5000 per household.
• If demand is allowed to vary year by year, then 2023 technology would give an annual spend of around £260 billion (perhaps £8000 per household).

This rate of spend would have to be sustained indefinitely.

Obviously, some reductions in costs should be expected by 2050, so the last scenario only determines the envelope of possible outcomes. However, it is clear that the Royal Society contains a significant error, having apparently used incorrect figures for their seasonal demand curve. The sheer scale of the optimism in its assumptions also means that it is misleading for the policy community.

Together, these flaws mean that the report should be withdrawn. (continue reading)

Costing the Green Grid: Current and Future Technology

The Administration’s stated goal for the energy transition is an energy system with “Net Zero” CO2 emissions after conversion of all energy end uses to all-electric systems. I often find, when trying to visualize a situation such as this, that it is helpful to visualize the end point of the transition and then analyze what had to be done to reach that end point. Such visualization and analysis are almost impossible in this situation because the possible paths from the current situation to the end point are dependent upon the development and implementation of several non-existent or non-commercial or non-economical technologies, not all of which are likely to be successfully developed and implemented at scale.

The technologies of concern include: offshore wind (fixed and floating); Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS); Direct Air Capture (DAC); medium-duration and long-duration electricity storage; green hydrogen; Distributed Emission-Free Resources (DEFR); and, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMR). Other technologies, less often discussed, include: dry hot rock geothermal; Ocean Thermal Energy conversion (OTEC); and, wave energy. Which of these technologies are successfully and economically developed and the timing of their availability would have a major influence on the end point of the proposed transition.

Offshore wind (fixed to the sea bed) is an established technology in Europe, although a variety of factors have recently increased its costs to prohibitive levels, which has caused the developers to cease proposing new installations until government subsidies and incentives are increased dramatically. The development of offshore wind off the US East Coast has similarly seen costs increase to prohibitive levels, causing several developers to withdraw from existing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), while other developers have halted planning for larger proposed projects. These problems have been compounded by excessive maintenance and repair expenses or newer, larger offshore wind turbine installations in Europe. Floating offshore wind projects off the US West Coast await design and testing of floating platforms and mooring systems.

CCUS has been demonstrated in several small-scale installations, all of which have been extremely expensive and have been limited to low percentage carbon capture. Experiments indicate that high percentage carbon capture would require high parasitic power consumption, rendering them uneconomic. DAC is under development in numerous projects. However, the major challenge for DAC is the large amount of atmospheric air that must be processed per unit of CO2 extracted. There is also growing resistance to the construction of the pipelines necessary to transport the CO2 removed by either process to the underground storage facilities. The success of CCUS and DAC would be essential to the continued use of fossil fuels in electric generation.

Existing battery storage technology is limited to an approximate 4-hour discharge cycle, though longer duration could be achieved by staging banks of 4-hour batteries. Medium duration batteries (4 to12-hour duration) are under development. Long-duration batteries would be required to accommodate the seasonal variation in wind and solar capacity factors. The only existing technology suitable for this application is pumped hydro storage, but there is strong resistance to the construction of pumped hydro facilities. Other approaches are in early development stages.

Green hydrogen offers the potential for both power generation and vehicle propulsion applications. However, production of green hydrogen requires both pure water and large quantities of electricity. This would likely require sea water desalination followed by electrolysis. These processes face significant efficiency challenges.

Distributed Emissions-Free Resources (DEFRs) remain undefined, though they might well include small modular nuclear generators (SMRs). Therefore, they can only be considered “placeholders”.

Designing and building a reliable energy system on a tight time schedule based on non-existent, non-commercial and non-economical technologies is a massive and unreasonable challenge.

From: Master Resource

By: Mark Krebs

Date: January 11, 2024

“Green” Weaponization in Missouri: Ameren vs. Ratepayers, Taxpayers

“Ameren Corporation claims, putting in SO2 scrubbers would cost more than securitizing Rush Island’s ‘stranded assets.’ However, Ameren is avoiding what it would fully cost to replace Rush Island’s critically needed and reliable capacity.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in Volume 4 of  Notes on Virginia:  “With money we will get men, said Cæsar, and with men we will get money.”[1]

Such threats to keeping our constitutional republic are increasingly evident with the weaponization of many Federal Agencies (e.g., the Department of Justice, FBI, etc.), as well as numerous Biden Executive Orders for federal agencies to fight the “existential” threat of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

These threats, coupled with the plague of “woke” political agendas promoting “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) and/or “Diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), are forcibly reaching leading “investment management” firms (e.g., BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, and J.P. Morgan).

Enter Missouri, where our utility Ameren Corporation drinks the green Kool-Aid as evidenced by their “woke” pitch to J.P. Morgan on June 22, 2023, titled Powering a Smart, Sustainable Tomorrow.  

The ESG/DEI cult has also infiltrated energy utility trade associations.  For example:

• EEI-AGA ESG/Sustainability Template
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Report

(continue reading)

“Green” Weaponization in Missouri: Ameren vs. Ratepayers, Taxpayers

The UN and numerous national governments are promoting the fantasy that the global energy economy can transition to a fossil-fuel-free, all-electric everything energy economy by 2050. In this fantasy, intermittent renewable generation combined with electricity storage provides a reliable energy system at lower energy cost than the predominantly fossil fueled energy system it would replace.

This fantasy is a complete and utter fraud, since those promoting it know that the generation technology they are promoting is intermittent and that the storage that they suggest would be required to overcome this intermittency and provide a reliable energy grid is inadequate, extremely expensive and unsuitable for the application. They also know that storage batteries suitable for the application are not commercially available and might not be commercially feasible. The only current approach to long-duration storage is pumped hydro, but there are insufficient suitable sites available and there has been strong resistance to pumped hydro storage, especially run-of-river installations.

Further, the technology required to electrify some industrial processes is not commercially available and, if available, would be far more expensive than the current fossil-fueled processes. The calcining of limestone to produce cement, for example, even if it could be performed using electricity as the heat source, would require the application of carbon capture and storage systems capable of capturing 100% of the CO2  released from the limestone, significantly increasing the cost of the process.

Farming and animal husbandry have also been identified as significant sources of CO2 emissions. Some governments have suggested imposing limitations on the use of synthetic fertilizers. Others have suggested destroying large numbers of meat and dairy animals to reduce methane emissions. However, reducing the global food supply and increasing global food costs is hardly consistent with the fantasy. Famine is a cruel approach to population control. Other approaches to population control are also being considered.

The realization that replacing fossil fuels in numerous residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural applications would require new technology and massive investments in facilities has precipitated discussions about approaches to reducing overall demand on the energy system. These have included “herding” large portions of the population into 15-minute cities, which would reduce the need for private transportation. Others have suggested draconian travel restrictions, such as the elimination of airports suggested for the UK. Also included are transitions from eating meat to eating “veggie burgers”, laboratory produced meats and factory-grown insects. Some have even suggested an end to private ownership of anything. Again, hardly consistent with the fantasy.

Other proposals are even less palatable. One US newspaper has suggested that rolling blackouts would be acceptable if they helped reduce climate change. One source has even suggested infecting the population with Lyme disease to encourage the development of Alpha-gal Syndrome, which renders the human system allergic to meat. So far, there has been no suggestion of starting a new pandemic, though there have been suggestions of reinstituting “lockdowns” to reduce energy consumption.

Resistance to the proposed energy transition is beginning to grow as the financial burdens and losses of personal freedom become progressively more obvious.

From: Energy Bad Boys - Substack

By: Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr

Date: January 6, 2024

Electricity Prices Are Soaring: It’s Time to Hold the “Energy Transition” Accountable

Rate cases throughout America tell the same story about the high cost of going green

Electricity prices in the United States are skyrocketing, with all-sectors electricity rates reaching new all-time highs in 2022 and 2023, but wind and solar advocates like to pretend that these energy sources are not responsible for the rising electricity costs paid by American families and businesses.

However, recent reports from Regulatory Research Associates (RRA), a division of S&P Global Commodity Insights, evaluating requests from electric companies to raise their prices (known as rate cases) clearly show that rising electricity prices are largely being driven by spending billions of dollars on wind turbines, solar panels, natural gas plants, and new transmission lines in pursuit of the so-called “energy transition.”

Our deeper-dive into the eight largest rate increase requests, as identified by RRA, reaffirms these findings by quoting directly from rate cases filed with state regulators, debunking the idea that wind and solar aren’t causing electricity rates to rise, once and for all.

Rate Making 101

Before we discuss the individual rate cases, it is important to understand that there is no free market for electricity, and there may never be.

In much of the country, electric companies are government-approved monopoly utilities that have the exclusive right to sell electricity in their service territories. Because electric companies are monopolies, it would be unfair to let them charge whatever they wish for electricity, so electricity prices are set by government regulatory bodies that oversee utilities, often called Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs) or Public Service Commissions (PSCs).  

When electric and gas utility companies want to raise prices on customers to pay for additional expenses, they must file rate cases with the PUC or PSC that justify the additional expenses in the company’s request.  

These additional expenses frequently consist of building new power plants, such as wind turbines, solar panels, or natural gas plants, as well as the additional ten percent profit utilities make on virtually every new asset they build and the cost of interest used to finance the construction of the plants. If the additional expenses outlined in the rate case are approved by the PUC or PSC, electricity rates go up for customers.

Rate increase requests have skyrocketed in recent years, according to the RRA reports, and so has the amount of money that electric companies are looking to raise from them. (continue reading)

Electricity Prices Are Soaring: It’s Time to Hold the “Energy Transition” Accountable

One of the most contentious issues in utility ratemaking has been the issue of allocation of both capital and operating costs among customer classes. This allocation has been accomplished through monthly service charges, time of day rates, seasonal rates, demand charges and various demand side management approaches.

However, the proposed transition from the current fossil and nuclear based electricity generation system to a system based largely on intermittent renewable generation presents a very different set of cost allocation issues. The current system costs include fuel supply costs and fuel inventories or supply contracts, depending on the generation technology. The system achieves stable output largely as the result of the large rotating masses of the steam and gas turbines which power the generators.

The system to which we have begun transitioning does not require fuel, but rather is dependent upon the intermittent availability of wind or sun. However, frequent fluctuations in wind availability and wind speed and frequent fluctuations in solar insolation result in generator output fluctuations which must be stabilized. Presently, these fluctuations represent a relatively minor fraction of cumulative generation. Short duration fluctuations (seconds to minutes in duration) can be stabilized with the application of power electronic devices and capacitors. Longer duration fluctuations (minutes to hours to days to weeks) are offset by adjustments to the operation of the fossil generation systems. The costs associated with stabilizing the outputs of intermittent renewable generators would appropriately be allocated to the intermittent generators, though this is not the current situation.

As the proposed transition proceeds, the capacity of intermittent renewable generation would increase and the capacity of existing fossil generation would be reduced. At some point, the remaining fossil generation would be insufficient to meet grid demand during periods of low/no renewable generation and some alternative method of achieving stable generation output would have to be implemented. The current assumption is that storage of some type, such as batteries, pumped hydro or compressed air storage would provide the stabilizing function. Regardless of whether this storage was collocated with each of the intermittent renewable generators or located at a number of strategically located grid hubs, the capital and operating costs of the storage required to stabilize the output of the renewable generators would appropriately be allocated to those generators.

Renewable generation developers have so far been able to claim that they provide electricity at lower cost than existing fossil and nuclear generators, as the utilities have borne the responsibility of adjusting the output of those generators to compensate for the fluctuations in renewable generator output. However, if the current costs of utility-provided output compensation or the costs of storage to provide output compensation were appropriately allocated to the renewable generators, the fallacy of their claim of lower electricity generating cost would become obvious.

Electric utilities earn a return on net physical plant in service (rate base). They are therefore faced with a Hobson’s Choice. Utilities could require that the intermittent renewable generation attached to their grids be dispatchable, in which case the investment in storage would be made by the renewable developers, increasing their delivered electricity costs, while the utilities” rate base and earnings potential declined as fossil generation was removed from service. Alternatively, the utilities could invest in the storage required to stabilize renewable generator output, increasing the utilities’ rate base investment and earnings potential, while accepting responsibility for increasing electricity costs.

Regardless of which approach were chosen, the transition would continue to increase electricity costs as long as the cost of storage capacity exceeds the cost of owning and operating fossil generation. Incentives and subsidies could offset all or a portion of the increase in rates, as they do now, but could only increase the real costs, as they do now.

TANSTAAFL – There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.