Naas: Xcel acknowledges massive cost of 100 percent renewables

[roberth]

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2019/12/21/naas-xcel-acknowledges-massive-cost-of-100-percent-renewables/


In what can only be described as revealing (and unsurprising), a 2019 March presentation (https://www.midwesterngovernors.org/wp-content/uploads/Issues/Energy/Grid-Modernization/Phase3/Webinar2-IndustryPerspective.pdf) by Xcel Energy supports our concerns (https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2019/12/07/naas-the-financial-fallout-of-100-percent-renewables-in-colorado/) about the cost of transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy.

To prevent ratepayers from curtailing their daily electric usage, Xcel believes it will need eight to sixteen weeks of storage capacity. Keep in mind, this projection is based on its current footprint of 3.6 million electric customers living in service areas throughout eight states. Nevertheless, if Xcel Energy is to build enough storage to cover peak demand (2020 projections from Northern States Power (https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId=%7b00FBAE6B-0000-C414-89F0-2FD05A36F568%7d&documentTitle=20197-154051-01), Public Service Company (https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/PDF/Attachment%20AKJ-2.pdf), and Southwestern Public Service (https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe-responsive/Company/Rates%20&%20Regulations/Resource%20Plans/2018-SPS-Appendix-D.pdf)) and last at least eight weeks (which is the low-end estimate) it will need to have close to 27 million megawatt hours of battery storage installed and online to prevent curtailment and maintain the status quo.

[BPTactical]

Well.......No shit!

[ray1970]

Or they could just randomly cut off service to paying customers like they do in California.

Last time I checked about 87% of electricity in the United States is still generated from coal. Almost 13% is from natural gas and less than 2% is generated from Nuclear sources. With big government having their hands all over energy production I don?t see any huge changes coming in my lifetime.

[theGinsue]

mjCRUvX2D0E

[Irving]

I recently saw a study that shows it costs me money to buy new tires and upgrade my laptop every two years. There is a study coming out soon about the potential cost of me moving into a bigger house on a larger piece of land. I have my fingers crossed that the results will be an overall cost savings.

[BushMasterBoy]

Food was way cheaper in 1776. So was housing. You could even have three wives.

[Gman]

Or they could just randomly cut off service to paying customers like they do in California.

Last time I checked about 87% of electricity in the United States is still generated from coal. Almost 13% is from natural gas and less than 2% is generated from Nuclear sources. With big government having their hands all over energy production I don?t see any huge changes coming in my lifetime.
It's time for a refresher:
U.S. electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 2018 (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)


Energy source Billion kWh Share of total
Total - all sources 4,171
Fossil fuels (total) 2,653 63.6%
Natural Gas 1,469 35.2%
Coal 1,146 27.5%
Petroleum (total) 25 0.6%
Petroleum liquids 16 0.4%
Petroelum coke 9 0.2%
Other gases 13 0.3%
Nuclear 807 19.4%
Renewables (total) 703 16.9%
Hydropower 293 7%
Wind 273 6.5%
Biomass (total) 58 1.4%
Wood 41 1.0%
Landfill gas 11 0.3%
Municipal solid waste (biogenic) 7 0.2%
Other biomass waste -1 <0.1%
Solar 64 1.5%
Photovoltaic 60 1.4%
Solar thermal 4 0.1%
Geothermal 16 0.4%
Pumped storage hydropower3 -6 -0.1%
Other sources3 13 0.3%

[BushMasterBoy]

A recently unearthed 2007 United States Geological Service survey appears to have discovered nearly $1 trillion in mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.

https://www.mining.com/1-trillion-motherlode-of-lithium-and-gold-discovered-in-afghanistan/


I just wonder if with solar and a big enough battery storage unit, could I go off the grid economically?

[spqrzilla]

"Renewables" are bull manure.

[Gman]

Particularly when you're talking about things that man doesn't have the control to "renew".

[Jer]

Agreed. We should base all of our energy production based solely on cost. It's worked well for China.

[20X11]

Don't even get me started on the DIRTY business that involves power transmission. They discredited and killed off Tesla a hundred years + ago because his ideas involved FREE power for everyone. Edison and his crooked bankers (JP Morgan) had to eliminate Tesla so we could PAY for power forever and live with the unsightly infrastructure to delver and meter (charge us) for power. Add to that the fact that even though we each have a 100, 125, or 200 amp panel to our houses, the companies depend on none of us using that full capacity we pay for. The shared transformers for each 5-6 homes are only 400 amp transformers. It's all BS, and they charge us for more than we need/use, raise our rates without need, and can never provide the reliability over the long term that they promise.

[Gman]

We have so much natural gas now that it's being burned to get rid of it (flaring). I sure wish it was being burned to make electricity.

[ray1970]

I don?t think they?re flairing it because of an over abundance. They?re going after the oil. With oil being about $60 a drum and the gas maybe $7 per thousand cubic feet they could care less about the gas. Also, when you bring up the liquids you can pump it into tanks and have trucks haul it off. Natural gas would need to be compressed and pushed into a pipeline. The producers would have to have a customer for the gas and contracts would likely demand a specific volume at a specific pressure and gas doesn?t get from the producers to the buyers without being transported on somebody else?s pipeline for a fee.

Just easier to flare it and get the liquids they?re after. Heck, if they could just vent it to atmosphere they probably would. Greenhouse gas and fugitive emissions laws probably require them to burn it.

[TRnCO]

I hate to know what the eastern plains of Colo. are going to look like in 10 years, 20 years, etc. from now. It's already amazing how damn many turbines are out there. Thousands and more it seems every day. Drive I-70 at night when you can see all the red blinkies and it's astonishing to wonder just how many more they need to get to 100% renewable. Ruining the land scape for sure.

[Gman]

Have to be able to store it for when the wind isn't blowing.

[BushMasterBoy]

A long time ago there was a big swamp. For millions of years this swamp flourished creating a huge biomass. Then a large multiple of asteroid strikes buried this biomass. The biomass was transformed to fossil fuels. The burning of these fossil fuels alters the atmosphere of the planet. If we alter the atmosphere and the climate too drastically there are going to be repercussions. The bad part is that all this carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans killing the plankton reducing the oxygen levels. The polar ice caps and all the glaciers melt. The sea level becomes much higher. Because the temperatures are so high, we have famines due to crop failures.
I have seen Pentagon reports discussing going to war because other nations violated emissions protocols causing flooding, famines, etc.

As Americans we are 4.27% of the earths population. We consume 97% of the world fossil fuels production. 7,000,000,000 humans and 327 million are Americans. I just hope this doesn't end up like the Pentagon analysts predict.

[roberth]

Have to be able to store it for when the wind isn't blowing.

Don't be silly. If we all wish hard enough wind and solar will be viable, now and in the future.

[spqrzilla]

I always go to the Pentagon for climate science.

[BushMasterBoy]

I always go to the Pentagon for climate science.

With a 700 billion dollar budget they ought to know. I remember the Pentium processor...

[Gman]

When the government funds science, they get the results they're looking for.

ETA: Corrected a typo.

[hatidua]

When the government funds science, they get the results their looking for.

-every single time.

[clodhopper]

A long time ago there was a big swamp. For millions of years this swamp flourished creating a huge biomass. Then a large multiple of asteroid strikes buried this biomass. The biomass was transformed to fossil fuels. The burning of these fossil fuels alters the atmosphere of the planet. If we alter the atmosphere and the climate too drastically there are going to be repercussions. The bad part is that all this carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans killing the plankton reducing the oxygen levels. The polar ice caps and all the glaciers melt. The sea level becomes much higher. Because the temperatures are so high, we have famines due to crop failures.
I have seen Pentagon reports discussing going to war because other nations violated emissions protocols causing flooding, famines, etc.

As Americans we are 4.27% of the earths population. We consume 97% of the world fossil fuels production. 7,000,000,000 humans and 327 million are Americans. I just hope this doesn't end up like the Pentagon analysts predict.

Do you apply any critical thought before regurgitating something you found on the internets? 97%? https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/03/which-countries-use-the-most-fossil-fuels/

[facepalm]

[spqrzilla]

Yeah.... About DOD climate bullshit.....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/29/dod-study-climate-change-will-destroy-us-in-2020/

[Gman]

72% of statistics are just made up.

Al Gore's doomsday countdown came and went. I'm not sure why everybody is concerned. The earth will end in 12 years anyway.

ETA: Love Anthony Watt's site. Intelligent conversation about 'climate change'.

Climate Prediction Swings and Misses: A Decade of Alarmist Strike Outs, 2010-2019 (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/29/climate-prediction-swings-and-misses-a-decade-of-alarmist-strike-outs-2010-2019/)

http://youtu.be/a_w8YRRMFOs

[BushMasterBoy]

Do you apply any critical thought before regurgitating something you found on the internets? 97%? https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/03/which-countries-use-the-most-fossil-fuels/

[facepalm]

I say the same to you. Did you even graduate any college?

[Gman]

Because a college degree means you're a real intellectual and everything you say/write is intelligent and well-thought-out. [facepalm]

[Aloha_Shooter]

A long time ago there was a big swamp. For millions of years this swamp flourished creating a huge biomass. Then a large multiple of asteroid strikes buried this biomass. The biomass was transformed to fossil fuels. The burning of these fossil fuels alters the atmosphere of the planet. If we alter the atmosphere and the climate too drastically there are going to be repercussions. The bad part is that all this carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans killing the plankton reducing the oxygen levels. The polar ice caps and all the glaciers melt. The sea level becomes much higher. Because the temperatures are so high, we have famines due to crop failures.
I have seen Pentagon reports discussing going to war because other nations violated emissions protocols causing flooding, famines, etc.

As Americans we are 4.27% of the earths population. We consume 97% of the world fossil fuels production. 7,000,000,000 humans and 327 million are Americans. I just hope this doesn't end up like the Pentagon analysts predict.

I've seen a lot of analyst reports from the Pentagon as well as other DC-area agencies. Most aren't worth the paper they're printed on (and I mostly read them in electronic form). Pentagon analysts are not a Hive or collective mind so be careful when you say "the Pentagon analysts" (emphasis added). Any discussion of going to war because of other nations violating emissions protocols is a lot of nonsense -- we would have to get the majority of the nation behind any cause of going to war and there's just no way we'd get national support for something as vague and disconnected as "violating emissions protocols".

There's a lot that alters the atmosphere of the planet, from biological organisms to biochemical processes to venting from geothermal activity. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of a natural process and the Earth has feedback mechanisms for processing it. The same can't be said for man-made materials like plastics or the changing of Earth's albedo by laying dark asphalt over everything. For that matter, the ash from burning materials changes the albedo at the poles. Solar activity is the dominant factor affecting Earth's heat equation. In the early 90s we had a series of solar flares during solar maximum that actually caused the Earth's atmosphere to expand (shown by the measurable increase in drag on satellites in low earth orbit).


I say the same to you. Did you even graduate any college?

Yes. I even got a scientific post-graduate degree and have been working in engineering and analytic jobs for quite a while. So did quite a number of people who vary from "lukewarmers" to outright opponents of the fear-mongering from the Left. One of the big problems with diatribe you spewed is the lack of or incorrect use of causal linkages. There is a big difference between statistical relationships and actually having a causal relationship based on physics (or biology or chemistry). Overall global temperatures and carbon dioxide content in the thermosphere are definitely linked statistically but if CO2 causes the heat increase, why does the CO2 increase lag behind the temperature increase by decades? For that matter, your statement about increasing temperatures causing floods and famines fits the Agenda but doesn't fit the facts. Worldwide food production has increased dramatically during the same period that Climate Change activists keep pointing to (19th and 20th centuries). Famines have been caused by inability to get food from where it's grown to where it's desired/needed -- and usually due to politics rather than resource constraints.

By the way, temperature change direction and magnitude can vary greatly depending on where your start and end your measurements. There's a reason Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al start their graphs and claims in the 18th century. There was a little thing called the Little Ice Age that was a local minima in measuring global temperatures. Funny thing about minima -- any measurement from there forward looks like dramatic increase in the baseline. If you go further back in time, you'll find temperatures were warm enough that vineyards existed in northern England and even Greenland -- see anyone growing enough (or good enough) grapes to make wine in either region right now? Now those periods were local maxima so it wouldn't be right to baseline your measurements there either but the point is that it has been much warmer in the past; activists have tried to get past those inconvenient facts and truths by simply relabeling them or denying the existence of the Medieval Warming Period.

Michael Mann has refused to publish the code he used to get his infamous "hockey stick" but analysts who reverse-engineered the code from the data he claimed to use have noted 1) MM and Phil Jones cherry-picked the data, and 2) the code produces a "Hockey Stick" even when white noise data is fed into it.

[BushMasterBoy]

If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-invest-billions-iowa-saudi-arabia-wind-2019-12-1028787852

[clodhopper]

Are you sure I am not?

[Aloha_Shooter]

If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-invest-billions-iowa-saudi-arabia-wind-2019-12-1028787852

As @clodhopper says, are you sure I am not? Having said that, financial wealth and scientific knowledge or acumen have no relation, causal or otherwise. Most scientists and engineers are NOT wealthy and only an idiot -- or someone desperate for rhetorical points -- would even suggest that they wealth has anything to do with intelligence. BTW, Business Insider is hardly a worthy citation. Their articles are so skewed and flawed by inadequate research or sourcing that I don't even bother looking at them when "suggested" by my news compilers anymore.

I find the lectures on "what the science says" from dolts who couldn't pass high school physics (e.g., Al Gore, Leo di Caprio, etc.) amusing. They certainly have more spare cash than I do but I have enough to do what I want to do and then some AND I actually understand physics and data processing.

[Irving]

Buying a home computer in 1984 = rich.

[Gman]

If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-invest-billions-iowa-saudi-arabia-wind-2019-12-1028787852

Berkshire Hathaway's billionaire boss isn't investing in green energy to cut carbon emissions or combat climate change, however, but because of government incentives.
"We wouldn't do [it] without the production tax credit we get," he said.

Our tax dollars at work in wealthy people's pockets...again.

[BushMasterBoy]

I love this thread.

[Gman]

I'm not sure why.

[BushMasterBoy]

The problem with Chinese energy reporting is it is simply bragging. Propaganda. People in Chinese homes stay warm by burning coal in fireplaces. Americans stay warm by electricity produced by burning coal in power plants.
The energy reports come from a source called CES AKA "Chinese Energy Security". This is a PRC source. But that is OK, you are all free to believe what you want.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The problem with Chinese energy reporting is it is simply bragging. Propaganda. People in Chinese homes stay warm by burning coal in fireplaces. Americans stay warm by electricity produced by burning coal in power plants.
The energy reports come from a source called CES AKA "Chinese Energy Security". This is a PRC source. But that is OK, you are all free to believe what you want.

Most of what the Communists "report" is simply bragging. It's always been that way since they've had inferiority complexes from Day One. Why are you bringing up this non-sequitur? What does it have to do with Xcel's admission of costs or the gross intentional biases used to support the Green agenda? The only linkage I've seen has been where analysts have said all the work the US has done to reduce its carbon emissions was overwhelmed by the increase in Chinese emissions.

[crays]

On an xcel related note, this showed up in my email today from xcel:


Dear Customer:

We recently submitted a proposal for Residential Time of Use electric rates to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), after a two-year trial in Colorado homes. Time of Use rates will give Xcel Energy?Colorado residential customers a new way to manage their energy bills. By shifting energy use away from peak weekday periods, residential customers can save money while helping reduce carbon emissions.

We are proposing that customers shift to this new Time of Use rate as new smart meters are installed, in a rollout scheduled to begin in 2021. These new meters will give customers fast feedback on how much electricity they use, helping them make decisions about their energy use. More information will be provided about the new meters as installation dates approach.

If approved as filed, these rates would become the default pricing plan for all residential customers in Colorado, replacing summer tiered rates. The On-Peak rate would apply from 3 to 7 p.m. each weekday (except holidays), June through September. Off-Peak rates offer savings and would stay in effect for most of the year (October to May), plus summer weekends and holidays.

LEARN MORE
This rate filing is subject to approval by the CPUC. Details about this request, including the legal notice, are available here (https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/rates/colorado_residential_time_of_use_rate). Rates are set through a transparent process with the Commission, which includes opportunities for public input and participation.

Link from email: https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/rates/colorado_residential_time_of_use_rate


Residential Time of Use Rate
Time of Use rates can help customers manage bills by using electricity when it costs less. They can also help reduce carbon emissions. Under this type of rate, customers pay different prices per kilowatt hour of electricity they use, depending on when they use it.

After a successful trial in Colorado homes, Xcel Energy has asked the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to approve Time of Use rates for all residential customers, beginning in 2021.

If approved, these rates would replace the existing tiered summer rates, which impose seasonally higher prices for more electric usage during the summer. The on-peak rate would be in effect each weekday (except holidays) during the summer, June through September, from 3 to 7 p.m. Off-peak rates overnight and in the morning (10 p.m. to 11 a.m.) offer savings.

[Gman]

Translation: BOHICA. If you have AC and stay in your home during the day (work at home/housewife/househusband/retired), you're going to probably pay more for the privilege.

I got the same email.

[Aloha_Shooter]

If you want to educate yourself on the "Hockey Stick" and why so many people have problems with Mann's "analysis", there are a bunch of links here (including to Mann's and Jone's original articles): https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

For those who don't want to read a bunch of academic papers arguing about statistics, there's always Dr. Roy Spencer's presentation on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0

[BushMasterBoy]

Dr. Spencer from Peabody Coal? OMFG!

[Aloha_Shooter]

Dr. Spencer from Peabody Coal? OMFG!

Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of Marshall Space Flight Center, currently Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Put away the Denver-approved recreational pharmaceuticals and turn off the Leftist indoctination; perhaps you'll actually learn something.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

[BushMasterBoy]

Nice insult.

[Justin]

Nukes or GTFO.