As Doomberg regularly explains, in the contest between physics and platitudes, physics is undefeated. this is another case proving that saying. Very interesting piece, thanks
South Forks PPA price was accidentally partly revealed in some public filings. It comes to a level 16 cents per kWh (starting lower, escalating to higher). Generous and hence why able to be built in environment of escalating construction costs and expensive debt. While other offshore wind projects are being cancelled.
That LCOE for nuclear power is a joke and divorced from the revealed reality of the 15-year saga to build Vogtle 3 and 4. Maybe that is a cost for building a nuclear power plant in China. But it ain’t the cost in the US.
I’ve never heard of requalifying a wind farm for PTCs. I don’t know how common that is, but quite a money grab if it can actually be done at scale.
"With such high electricity prices, one might expect political leaders to attempt to reduce the burden of the energy costs their constituents pay. Instead, policymakers in these states have insisted on mandating offshore wind, which will invariably increase electricity rates and impose a higher federal spending and tax burden on the country"
About 20 years ago Jürgen Trittin told German tax payers the switch to green would cost no more that one scoop of ice cream per month, which would be about the 1$ you mentioned in your piece. Now, about 20 years later the additional costs are about 80 scoops of ice cream per month and there is no end in sight. Just two weeks ago our minister for economics discovered a gap of 60 billion Euros which are needed to build backup power plants until 2030. I would laugh at this, but unfortunately I have to pay for this .
Fun fact: The late Aloys Wobben made his first billion in less time than Bill Gates. Mr. Wobben was the owner of Enercon, a company busy with building wind turbines, wind parks and fleecing the German tax payer.
Excellent insight, thank you. May I ask what is holding back the people of Germany from choosing a new way forward? It seems clear from the other side of the Atlantic that Germany's energy policy is a failure by almost any measure -- why continue?
Excellent question. First the German public is not aware how big the mess is we are in. The people who are driving the transition are ideologists, and they would never admit that we took the wrong turn. The same ideologists are working at the newspapers and TV so this farce will probably going on for a while. Since ESG is a big thing for the CEOs they must play along but at the same time they move the production to Asia or the US. So we have the situation that the German public isn't aware about the situation, the politicans feel good because they are saving the planet and the CEOs don't want to burn their career.
But even if all of this wouldn't be true, there would be no way out of this mess still. In the last 40 years nuclear power was demonized to a degree that it wouldn't be possible to build a new NPP without provoking riots. In my opinion NPPs are the only viable way to uphold in the long term the living standards we currently have. This means that my country is facing a steep decline which seems has already started.
Thanks for the answer. I don't like it (and I feel bad for the German people), but I appreciate the assessment. I hope there's a culture shift that will allow for dense, reliable energy again.
Many new renewable sources in the interior West require new transmission lines. I'm not sure if the costs of building and maintaining (so they don't start wildfires and run up enormous settlements therefrom) these are included in any of the cost estimates.
A lot of LCOE estimates exclude transmission costs, although recent estimates by the Energy Information Administration have tried to include them. It's best to check the fine print. But you're right that new transmission is a high cost for remote-sited renewables. That is part of the reason why advocates for new renewables like solar and wind want to socialize the cost of the transmission upgrades required for their favored resources to interconnect.
So here's the thing.. if PG&E is being litigated for not enough maintenance for Calif wildfires, and Xcel is being litigated for starting the Marshall Fire, then there is some level of maintenance that would obviate lawsuits when things go awry. I'm not sure anyone knows what this is, so that it could be included in future maintenance costs.
1) The maintenance costs you mention could raise the transmission cost for a new generation asset, but it would raise transmission costs across the board, so the costs wouldn't be unique to new renewables. It does highlight the need to focus on the basics, though, like not starting fires. 2) I'm not an attorney, so please take the following with a grain of salt. Under California's strict liability law, PG&E would be at fault whether or not the level of maintenance it was performing on its transmission and distribution system was considered negligent. This is a huge deal, and I personally disagree with the California law. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-loses-challenge-to-law-holding-it-liable-for-fire-damage-11574910091 I don't know the liability regime in Xcel's footprint.
Right, but I thought the maintenance you mentioned earlier (re: wildfires) was something like vegetation management or equipment checks, which would be ongoing expenses for existing and new transmission alike.
We can't really compare base load and intermittent sources as others have pointed out, we need the whole package of "reliable 24/7 costs of different mixes."
My point was simply that part of those costs would be the development, maintenance of that infrastructure (whatever gets a system to 24/7, batteries or whatever), plus the development and maintenance of transmission that would otherwise not exist if the new energy source is located at a distance from existing lines.
My point is simply that current sources have transmission and maintenance costs, some new sources would require additional transmission and maintenance costs which should also be included. Current situation= source A plus transmission B. future= source C plus transmission D. We can't assume that C and D are the same. Does that make sense?
This is why I think the USG should conduct a programmatic EIS on energy provision looking at different alternative ways of decarbonizing. Otherwise we don't have a consistent cost framework.
As Doomberg regularly explains, in the contest between physics and platitudes, physics is undefeated. this is another case proving that saying. Very interesting piece, thanks
South Forks PPA price was accidentally partly revealed in some public filings. It comes to a level 16 cents per kWh (starting lower, escalating to higher). Generous and hence why able to be built in environment of escalating construction costs and expensive debt. While other offshore wind projects are being cancelled.
That LCOE for nuclear power is a joke and divorced from the revealed reality of the 15-year saga to build Vogtle 3 and 4. Maybe that is a cost for building a nuclear power plant in China. But it ain’t the cost in the US.
I’ve never heard of requalifying a wind farm for PTCs. I don’t know how common that is, but quite a money grab if it can actually be done at scale.
Quite a money grab indeed https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/the-death-of-a-wind-farm
"With such high electricity prices, one might expect political leaders to attempt to reduce the burden of the energy costs their constituents pay. Instead, policymakers in these states have insisted on mandating offshore wind, which will invariably increase electricity rates and impose a higher federal spending and tax burden on the country"
So who names the names of the grifters?
About 20 years ago Jürgen Trittin told German tax payers the switch to green would cost no more that one scoop of ice cream per month, which would be about the 1$ you mentioned in your piece. Now, about 20 years later the additional costs are about 80 scoops of ice cream per month and there is no end in sight. Just two weeks ago our minister for economics discovered a gap of 60 billion Euros which are needed to build backup power plants until 2030. I would laugh at this, but unfortunately I have to pay for this .
Fun fact: The late Aloys Wobben made his first billion in less time than Bill Gates. Mr. Wobben was the owner of Enercon, a company busy with building wind turbines, wind parks and fleecing the German tax payer.
Excellent insight, thank you. May I ask what is holding back the people of Germany from choosing a new way forward? It seems clear from the other side of the Atlantic that Germany's energy policy is a failure by almost any measure -- why continue?
Excellent question. First the German public is not aware how big the mess is we are in. The people who are driving the transition are ideologists, and they would never admit that we took the wrong turn. The same ideologists are working at the newspapers and TV so this farce will probably going on for a while. Since ESG is a big thing for the CEOs they must play along but at the same time they move the production to Asia or the US. So we have the situation that the German public isn't aware about the situation, the politicans feel good because they are saving the planet and the CEOs don't want to burn their career.
But even if all of this wouldn't be true, there would be no way out of this mess still. In the last 40 years nuclear power was demonized to a degree that it wouldn't be possible to build a new NPP without provoking riots. In my opinion NPPs are the only viable way to uphold in the long term the living standards we currently have. This means that my country is facing a steep decline which seems has already started.
Thanks for the answer. I don't like it (and I feel bad for the German people), but I appreciate the assessment. I hope there's a culture shift that will allow for dense, reliable energy again.
You named a name. Congratulations! More of this from all critics of renewable policy please!
Many new renewable sources in the interior West require new transmission lines. I'm not sure if the costs of building and maintaining (so they don't start wildfires and run up enormous settlements therefrom) these are included in any of the cost estimates.
A lot of LCOE estimates exclude transmission costs, although recent estimates by the Energy Information Administration have tried to include them. It's best to check the fine print. But you're right that new transmission is a high cost for remote-sited renewables. That is part of the reason why advocates for new renewables like solar and wind want to socialize the cost of the transmission upgrades required for their favored resources to interconnect.
So here's the thing.. if PG&E is being litigated for not enough maintenance for Calif wildfires, and Xcel is being litigated for starting the Marshall Fire, then there is some level of maintenance that would obviate lawsuits when things go awry. I'm not sure anyone knows what this is, so that it could be included in future maintenance costs.
1) The maintenance costs you mention could raise the transmission cost for a new generation asset, but it would raise transmission costs across the board, so the costs wouldn't be unique to new renewables. It does highlight the need to focus on the basics, though, like not starting fires. 2) I'm not an attorney, so please take the following with a grain of salt. Under California's strict liability law, PG&E would be at fault whether or not the level of maintenance it was performing on its transmission and distribution system was considered negligent. This is a huge deal, and I personally disagree with the California law. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-loses-challenge-to-law-holding-it-liable-for-fire-damage-11574910091 I don't know the liability regime in Xcel's footprint.
I agree but new, say, ,nuclear plants may be sited near existing transmission lines. https://energycommunities.gov/terrapower-nuclear-plant-wyoming/
Right, but I thought the maintenance you mentioned earlier (re: wildfires) was something like vegetation management or equipment checks, which would be ongoing expenses for existing and new transmission alike.
To electrify (not just add renewables) it sounds like some folks estimate 91K miles of new transmission lines (not all about renewables).https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-boom-clean-energy-benefits-inflation-reduction-act/633156/ within the next 13 years.
We can't really compare base load and intermittent sources as others have pointed out, we need the whole package of "reliable 24/7 costs of different mixes."
My point was simply that part of those costs would be the development, maintenance of that infrastructure (whatever gets a system to 24/7, batteries or whatever), plus the development and maintenance of transmission that would otherwise not exist if the new energy source is located at a distance from existing lines.
My point is simply that current sources have transmission and maintenance costs, some new sources would require additional transmission and maintenance costs which should also be included. Current situation= source A plus transmission B. future= source C plus transmission D. We can't assume that C and D are the same. Does that make sense?
This is why I think the USG should conduct a programmatic EIS on energy provision looking at different alternative ways of decarbonizing. Otherwise we don't have a consistent cost framework.
Thanks for the analysis. Why do I hear so much about east coast offshore wind farms but almost nothing about the wind farms on the west coast?
The short answer is that the water is too deep for the relatively more cost effective fixed-bottom facilities. You may have heard of using floating offshore wind to capture the high winds over deep waters like the Pacific and Great Lakes. See: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/blowing-away-gaps-west-coast-offshore-wind-transmission-analysis