Category — State Energy Issues
“Many people point to the mandates of Ohio Senate Bill 221 or other such legislation in other states, which require the use of fashionable generation methods for electricity, as justification for subsidizing investment into economically questionable energy generation projects.
To me this is an exercise in circular logic, mandating that we have to use more expensive means of generating electricity, and then using the rising cost of electricity to justify subsidizing more expensive means of generating electricity.”
Jerry Graf – Effective Energy Strategy (March 2013)
In an editorial response printed in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (10/21/2013), four co-authors make the following points with regard to the Blue Creek Wind Farm and wind energy in general.
I have rearranged their words for brevity and direct the reader to the Journal Gazette website to read verbatim. Our rebuttal letter follows:
Electricity from wind is very high in true cost and low in true value
Electricity from wind turbines is low in value because it can’t be counted on to be available when needed, and it is most likely to be produced at times when it is least needed. Wind turbines tend to produce most of their electricity at night in cold months, not on hot weekday afternoons in July and August when demand for electricity is highest. Furthermore, the electricity from wind tends to be low in value because the output can’t be counted upon to be available at the time of peak demand, unlike reliable (“dispatchable”) generating units that can be called upon to produce whenever needed. [Read more →]
December 3, 2013 3 Comments
“Speaking subjectively, when we provide natural gas, coal, or nuclear with subsidies, we get thousands and thousands of gigawatt-hours of constant, concentrated, and reliable electricity that drives our economy. When we provide solar and wind with subsidies, we do not get enough electricity to pay back even as much as the initial investment; and that electricity is not constant, not concentrated, and not reliable. In fact it has to be continuously backed up by natural gas, or nuclear, or coal just to keep the lights on.”
- Jerry Graf, Energy Subsidies in the USA (March 2013)
Earlier this week, in commentary under an article on a different site, I was informed that my assertions that current wind and solar technologies were less-than-effective alternative-energy sources were “not true.”
I was asked to search for information regarding “Xcel wind & solar”, and also informed that Xcel’s projects were providing energy with competitive Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) as low as $60MWh. No additional details regarding any specific projects were provided. [Read more →]
November 20, 2013 9 Comments
“An Energy Imbalance Market would mainly have to rely on cheap hydropower in the Western U.S. to offset high green power prices and high peaker power prices during the sunset hours of the day. Ironically, California banned hydropower as “renewable energy” under the California Global Warming Solutions Act …. Now, cheap hydropower has to come to the rescue of the green power grid.”
California is trying to do a quick splicing job to its green energy grid by creating an “Energy Imbalancing Market” to cut off an emerging daily two-hour energy-pricing crisis. The crisis isn’t so much an imbalance of the availability of electrons but imbalanced electricity prices during the sunset hours of each day.
In today’s California energy market, the grid operator must balance loads and resources within its borders. In an Energy Balancing Market, the grid operator schedules resources across regional balancing authorities to balance energy. An energy imbalance is the difference between live demand and prearranged scheduled resources. California is part of the Western Interconnection Coordinating Council (WECC), which includes 33 control areas shown here. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved California’s implementation of an Energy Imbalancing Market by October 2014.
California’s “Duck Chart” Problem Can’t Be Ducked
An emerging problem with California’s new green power grid is how to ramp up enough conventional power each day when solar power is sunsetting and mostly nighttime wind power isn’t spinning enough yet to take over. [Read more →]
November 13, 2013 4 Comments
- CA’s Green Energy Swan Turning Into Ugly Duckling; $5 Gas in CA? Lack of Cap-and-Trade Price Ceiling Could Bring It;
- Santa Barbara Picks Drilling Over Greening;
- Green Actions Cause One-Third of Human Caused Earthquakes; Study Questions Whether Fracking Causes Earthquakes;
- New Fracking Website Posted Online by Western Petroleum Association
California’s Green Energy Swan Turning Into Ugly Duckling
In the upside down world of California energy, no longer are the hot summer months or the occasional winter cold snap the only peak period of hourly risk to the state’s electric grid. The new daily peak hours of each day from 4 pm to 7 pm during the “shoulder months” of March, April and May and September, October, and November are the new peak month/hour times. What is causing this shift in peak time power is California’s transition to solar energy as the major source of base load power during day. California is in the process of transitioning up too 33%, and eventually to 51%, of its power from green energy sources under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also called Assembly Bill 32).
Of particular concern to California’s Independent System Operator (ISO) are three hour periods in the Spring and Fall. It would be the sunset period of each day, not mid-day, that is already beginning to present a critical challenge to the reliability of electricity for customers. The problem during the critical hours from 4 to 7 pm is the steep ramp up of conventional gas-fired power as solar power winds down at sunset. [Read more →]
October 30, 2013 3 Comments
Would you rather invest your money in a safe or an unsafe place? Spanish oil and gas company Repsol, the 15th largest hydrocarbon entity in the world, has answered that question by shifting its attention from Argentina to Alaska and other areas inside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
In 1998 Repsol paid $13 billion for nearly 60% of YPF, the Argentine oil company. In 2010, Repsol discovered a significant oil shale play in an area called Vaca Muerta. All seemed well for the investor and for locals for greater economic activity and more energy.
But in 2011, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner nationalized 51 percent of YPF, leaving Repsol with 6.4 percent ownership . Repsol wants $10.5 billion in compensation; Argentina’s most recent offer is $1.5 billion. There is a chance that Repsol could get less or nothing.
Production has declined with the fight, eight percent in 2012 alone. The EU, UK, Mexico, Chile and Colombia have condemned Argentina’s action, as has the U.S. State Department.
Senate Bill 21: Alaska Oil Open for Business
In 2011, Repsol acquired a large lease position in Alaska given the rich prospecting and the upside of positive tax reform in the state. The latter occurred in mid-2013 with the passage of Senate Bill 21, the More Alaskan Production Act, signed into law by Governor Sean Parnell.
October 25, 2013 No Comments
[The following is a weekly digest of California energy news excerpted from Calwatchdog.com. This inaugural report will be followed by updates from the world's 8th largest economy every one-to-two weeks, depending on developments. MasterResource welcomes Mr. Lusvardi to our team (bio below).]
California Dems pass pro-fracking bill; CPUC Blacks-Out Green Power Prices from Consumers; Rooftop Solar to Cost Other Customers $1.1 Billion per Year
A Pro-Fracking Bill Disguised as an Anti-Fracking Bill
Can you imagine California’s Democratic-controlled legislature and Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown passing a pro-fracking bill? Neither could the mainstream media in California that reported state officials had passed an anti-fracking bill on Sept. 20 sponsored by State Senator Fran Pavley (D, Los Angeles County), the leader of the green voting block in both houses of the legislature.
State Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) was reported by green reporter Chris Clarke on his Re-Wire blog at the KCET public television website as requiring: (1) a scientific assessment of fracking, (2) frackers to apply for permits, (3) fracking to continue while state crafts further regulations, (4) fracking permits to be provided to nearby property owners within 30 days; and (5) regulation of injecting acid into the ground, not fracking per se. A legislative analysis of SB 4 can be found here, including a list of those who supported or opposed the bill.
SB 4 was amended ten times. It was opposed by the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, Physicians for Social Responsibility and a number of oil companies and the state Chamber of Commerce. The California League of Conservation Voters and the National Resources Defense Council pulled their support at the last moment when fracking moratorium provisions were removed. Who supported and opposed the bill is not a good indicator of whether the bill was pro or anti fracking. If Republicans had supported SB 4 this would have been a signal for California’s environmentalists to oppose it.
The reality of what SB 4 provided was the opposite of what was reported. [Read more →]
October 5, 2013 3 Comments
“Sadly, the narrative supporting anthropogenic global warming has less to do with protecting the Earth, but more to do with redistributing wealth through climate change policies…. [R]ather than take the indicators’ report at face value, policy-makers would be better served to ask whether the indicators referenced in the report are accurate, relevant to our current environmental remedies and if they provide for reproducible results in the future.”
Will California stay the futile course of warring against the green greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide? Or will the state yield to economic and climate realities?
As country after country and state after state rethink and retreat from public policies to significantly reduce believed-to-be anthropogenic climate change, California is the holdout. Will the Governor, his administration, the Legislature and environmental interest groups listen to actual science or continue to listen to fear mongers.
Such a reconsideration of the failed status quo can begin by critically assessing the Brown Administration’s own assessment of various climate change “indicators.” Simply recognizing the report’s contradictions can inspire a reform effort to stop injuring the world’s eighth largest economy one paper cut at a time.
Governor Jerry Brown has a warning for you: [Read more →]
September 19, 2013 1 Comment
“New York State’s installed wind factories averaged a pathetic 23.5% Capacity Factor in 2012…. It’s no wonder New York has earned the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States – 17.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – a whopping 53% above the national average.”
The last minute extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC – aka: “Pork To Cronies”) within the December 31, 2012 fiscal cliff deal was good news for Big Wind corporate welfare profiteers, like Michael Polsky’s Invenergy. It was very bad news for rural/residential Towns being targeted by industrial wind developers here in New York State, and across the nation.
Despite the fact that the Wyoming County, NY Town of Orangeville’s conflicted Town Board approved Invenergy’s “Stony Creek” project in the Fall of 2012, Invenergy admitted they would not be going ahead with the project unless the PTC was extended – highlighting the fact that the only thing Invenergy is interested in ‘harvesting’ is taxpayers’ money.
Once Crony-Corruptocrats in DC extended the PTC in that midnight fiscal cliff deal, the once-beautiful rolling hills of the Town of Orangeville were doomed. As Michael Polsky enjoys his new mansion, many Orangeville residents are helplessly looking on in disgust as Invenergy turns their entire Town into a sprawling industrial wind factory — rendering their homes virtually worthless — all thanks to the legalized thievery of their own tax dollars for The Wind Farm Scam.
September 12, 2013 12 Comments
Letter to New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers: Seven Reasons to Reject Big Wind (Part II)
“Revise or withdraw your plans that support the expansion of wind and a wind build-out in rural areas to support the urban areas. Start evaluating and fixing the problems that have been created by your policies.”
Dear New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers:
As you gather for your invitation-only, 37th Annual Conference in La Malbaie this weekend, we, the undersigned groups, individuals and victims, appeal to you to take clear, compelling, and compassionate steps to solve the problems you have created by supporting the deployment of “big wind” in our region.
These generation projects create serious, often intractable problems. Those of us who have been forced to live near the utility-scale wind projects you have promoted, and the individuals and groups we are working with, have learned through direct experience the consequences of these projects which include:
Stressing Grid Interconnections and Transmission Lines
New England’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations for 2010 were about 14% of demand – an amount satisfied through a combination of existing, qualified resources in New England and renewable energy imported from neighboring New York and Canada. These percentages are slated to reach over 20% by 2020 with most of the energy coming from projects not yet built. Since wind energy is the primary resource proposed to be built in the region, and the resource most favored by you, future RPS obligations will likely be met through the deployment of thousands of new turbines. [Read more →]
September 10, 2013 No Comments
Dear New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers: Back Off Windpower for a Better Environment! (Part I)
“We don’t have ramping plants, so these [wind power] projects can increase, not decrease, our region’s greenhouse gas emissions. Why aren’t we talking about that? … Let’s have a conversation that addresses what is happening now.”
The press release and testimonials below were sent to the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers who are currently meeting in Quebec to discuss energy issues. At last year’s conference, a commitment was made for more renewables in New England. This year, the grass roots is urging them to back off. Part I today reprints the press release; the letter will follow tomorrow as Part II of this series.
The press release follows:
Hundreds of individuals, victims and groups sent a letter [tomorrow's post] to the Northeast region’s governor and premiers asking for an end to utility-scale wind development until those projects’ impacts have been addressed.
The letter comes as the officials gather this weekend in La Malbaie for the 37th Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers.
“We are asking them to take clear, compelling, and compassionate steps to solve the problems they have created by supporting the deployment of ‘big wind’ in our region,” said Windwise Massachusetts president Virginia Irvine. “These projects are happening in no small part because of the legislative requirements and generous subsidies for developers pushed by Governors and supported by elected officials. Those officials need to take responsibility for what has happened to individuals and communities as a result.” [Read more →]
September 9, 2013 No Comments