Solar, Wind Renewable Energy

[ERD50]

I hate to add a link, but it directly speaks to your concerns ERD50. I'm not an energy expert, not an engineer, not a scientist, not a politician. I can't shout you down or convince you to agree with me. Let's get back to this discussion in 5 years. I'll leave it at that.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/16/16895594/colorado-renewable-energy-future

I'll read your article later, gotta run for a while, but "shouting me down" doesn't sound like a good solutions-based approach, does it? You don't need to "convince me to agree with you", I will agree with facts. If you can present them, please do.

I am an engineer, and try my best to follow the scientific process, and while I'm not an energy 'expert', I do try to keep well informed on the subject, and have had some pretty in-depth discussion with real industry experts on another technical forum.

-ERD50

 

[Rianne]

ty). I forget the details, but this was a BIG, BIG project.

-ERD50

This statement rings familiar. Where have I heard that before?

 

[ERD50]

This statement rings familiar. Where have I heard that before?

That's cryptic to me. What are you saying?

I'm busy with a home project, just taking a few minutes here and there to post, didn't have time at the moment to search the specifics. But by BIG, BIG project, I think this qualifies - the SMUD Iowa Hill project (in CA), cost projection was $1.4B when they canceled it. The reservoir they needed was 6400 acre-feet of water. Capacity of 400MW, I could not find a value in MW-Hrs. That means it could supply a PEAK of 400MW, but we don't know for how long. They talked about using it from 4-7PM, but I would assume it ramps up/down through those hours. But spit-ball it at 1/2 capacity the 1st hour, full the second, and 1/2 the third, would be ~ 800 MW-Hrs each day.

For perspective, a typical coal plant can produce 800 MW all day/night long, about 24x what this big project could supply. And geography is limited for installations like this, it's just not something that can be widely implemented in the US.

I hate to add a link, but it directly speaks to your concerns ERD50. I'm not an energy expert, not an engineer, not a scientist, not a politician. I can't shout you down or convince you to agree with me. Let's get back to this discussion in 5 years. I'll leave it at that.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/16/16895594/colorado-renewable-energy-future

OK, I read your link. Did you? Did you comprehend it?

This gets back to that previous thread on trusting news sites - that article is mostly hype, and I suspect it misleads a lot of people into thinking solutions are right around the corner (like 5 years?).

So they see some numbers that look good to them, and run with it:

For the Tucson project, storage added about $15/MWh to the cost of the solar. Compare that to the $3 to $7 added by storage in the Xcel bids. Storage prices are plunging, and as they do, renewables become more competitive.

The figure shows median costs for Solar PV @ $29.50/MW-Hr and Solar with 'storage' @ $36.00/MW-Hr, so there is an $6.50 adder for storage in median costs (these are lifetime costs).

But does this mean that "Storage prices are plunging,"? Well, let's see - they go on to say (bold mine this time)...

(Important caveats: The Lazard LCOE is for solar with 10 hours of storage, but we do not yet know how much storage is involved in the Xcel bids; Lazard estimates unsubsidized costs, while Xcel projects will benefit from federal tax credits; Lazard’s estimate is for 2017, while developers are effectively bidding 2023 costs. Direct comparisons are difficult. Point is, the number is vaulting down.)

That's some sad reporting. They don't know what the numbers represent, but they still can say it means the number is "vaulting down". No, you can't say that w/o a direct comparison. They only say it, because they want to believe it, and they think it is what their readers want to hear.

BTW, some perspective on those numbers of $7/MW-Hr adder for battery storage. That's a real funny number, because it is clearly (to me) based on MW-Hrs of the solar panels over their life, not the MW-Hrs of the storage itself (a number they don't know). But batteries for a Tesla run somewhere around $200/KW-Hr, but let's round down to $100. That would be an initial (not lifetime) cost of $100,000 per MW-Hr.

At that rate, backing up the equivalent of a single coal plant for a single hour would require $80 Million dollars in batteries (plus inverters, a building, etc). For a day, $1.9 B, for a week, ~$13B.

How many of their readers understand the difference? How many of their authors understand the difference? If any of their authors understand the difference, would they bother to explain it?

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

Got a source for that? Less than two years from now, 100% of electricity for RE? Maybe they do have enough hydro for this, but 2020 still seems very close in. Or is that a political 'mandate/wish'?

Not hydro: wind and nuclear dominate. They have lots of nice wind sites along the coast line. Hydro is there too, but only a quarter or so of what wind does. Nuclear is going to be phased out (slowly).

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...omes-118-per-cent-of-households-a7855846.html
Energy in Scotland: Get the facts
Energy Statistics Database

Well on the way:

Energy sources in Scotland
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...et-for-100-renewable-energy-by-2020-1.3280498

Note the article is a bit confusing: 2020 in electricity demand, fully CO2 neutral is much later.

Yes, much easier to go 100% RE if your demands are low. And probably makes sense versus large grid if all you need is a reading light a few hours a day, a cell phone charger, and maybe a small, efficient mini-fridge if you are 'wealthy'.

Nice article about mini-grids here:
https://www.economist.com/finance-a...d-be-a-boon-to-poor-people-in-africa-and-asia

Yes, not at production and scales the US does, but it's a lot more than just a few lights - also covers light industry.

 

[ERD50]

Not hydro: wind and nuclear dominate. They have lots of nice wind sites along the coast line. Hydro is there too, but only a quarter or so of what wind does. Nuclear is going to be phased out (slowly).

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...omes-118-per-cent-of-households-a7855846.html
Energy in Scotland: Get the facts
Energy Statistics Database

Well on the way:

Energy sources in Scotland
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...et-for-100-renewable-energy-by-2020-1.3280498

Note the article is a bit confusing: 2020 in electricity demand, fully CO2 neutral is much later.



Nice article about mini-grids here:
https://www.economist.com/finance-a...d-be-a-boon-to-poor-people-in-africa-and-asia

Yes, not at production and scales the US does, but it's a lot more than just a few lights - also covers light industry.

Thanks. I haven't had time to do a deep dive into those, but a bit more than a skim seems to show the same kind of 'funny math' I've seen in other articles.

The title is misleading (to be kind), "Scotland sets renewable energy record as wind power provides equivalent of 118% of nation's electricity" - that was for six cherry-picked days. Further down, we see: "Renewables experts say this means wind generated the equivalent of 57 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity needs.".

Now, 57% is impressive, but the 'funny math' is that they are connected with England's grid. If they didn't have that to suck up the occasional excess, and to draw from on calmer days, it wouldn't really work so well. The 57% should be based on the entire grid they supply/draw from, not just Scotland's consumption. What would that number be?

And if they had 6 days with 118% from wind alone (I think that's what they are trying to say), and assuming they could not shut down other sources, that will be more and more energy that they can't sell. That makes the economics worse and worse as you add more wind. Each incremental addition gets hit - it is part of the excess they can't sell. For simple math, when the next 1 GW of capacity you install will have half of its output on top of peaks that can't be sold, then the ROI is twice as long on that marginal added GW install. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

Now people will say an excess is great, we will charge EVs with it. OK, but is the excess there regularly enough to support a fleet of EVs that want an average amount of charge each night? In my simple half-wasted example above, that's an average. It means you may have way, way over capacity on some days, and under on others. EVs aren't a great match to that.

Maybe 'smart tech' will help, like the utility predicting good winds 2 nights from now, and some algorithm that would prioritize your charging for that time period. You'd need to have a calendar that says when you absolutely need X% charge on which days. It could try to match your needs to any excess, and allow you to be charged to that minimum level by your defined time/date, using conventional sources if needed, and getting you as 'full' as they can on any excess as it occurs. Have no idea if that could actually work, just brain-storming.

-ERD50

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

It's only cheap because they rely on the rest of the grid (and all its costs) for backup.

As you add more and more (intermittent) renewable energy on a grid, you run into problems. If you have enough to make a significant % on average, that usually means you have some big peaks at times it isn't needed. There is no economic, environmental storage solution on the horizon. So that energy will often be wasted. Which means you need to charge more on average for what you can sell, or your ROI on new installs keeps getting worse and worse.

Costs start going up when reality hits. I saw some charts from some countries that were pushing RE big time, and they all cap out at fairly low average % of total power, and they stop installing more because they can't recoup much of the added marginal production. Too much of it hits when there isn't enough demand.

It's a good thing as far as it goes, but it only goes so far.

-ERD50

All of those 'you's in your post apply to the public utilities.

The OP is private citizen.

So much of your post is off-topic.

If a private individual wants to use solar-power, the individual does not care about the public utility investment.

 

[Offgrid Organic Farmer]

I live in a rural area. Our power grid is unreliable. My farm is on solar-power.

In my town only a quarter of the solar power installs are grid-tied net-metering. It is much cheaper to go off-grid with batteries, as compared to the same size net-metering system.

Our accountant has us depreciating our solar equipment over 7 years. Which has a big effect on how long it takes to break-even on the cost.

 

[ERD50]

All of those 'you's in your post apply to the public utilities.

The OP is private citizen.

So much of your post is off-topic.

If a private individual wants to use solar-power, the individual does not care about the public utility investment.

But the OP is not off grid.

They may not "care about the public utility investment", but they will care about brown/black outs, and the $ the utility charges them.

And if they are off-grid, they will need to worry about the intermittent nature of solar/wind.

So how is that off-topic?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... In my town only a quarter of the solar power installs are grid-tied net-metering. It is much cheaper to go off-grid with batteries, as compared to the same size net-metering system.

How can off-grid with batteries be cheaper than grid tie? Batteries are expensive.

... Our accountant has us depreciating our solar equipment over 7 years. Which has a big effect on how long it takes to break-even on the cost.

OP isn't running a business. Depreciation doesn't fit into it. And I'm off-topic?

Anyhow, won't the depreciation come back to you when you sell the property? More of a deferral than a 'savings'?

-ERD50

 

[RobbieB]

I'm liking my small solar roof array. I'll be paying about a hundred bucks for juice this year.

 

[happy2bretired]

Let's get back to this discussion in 5 years. I'll leave it at that.

I believe RE will change quite rapidly within the 5 years. Remember this is only my uneducated opinion. [emoji1]

Here’s a .gov link that’s interesting.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71493.pdf

My town is on the grid but look what I found just now in a Seattle newspaper.[emoji1] I’m kinda proud of that.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation...ar-energy-farms-gaining-traction-in-nebraska/

Oh and Nebraska has lots of wind (lots), but there are quite a few people in the state that are against wind farms. It’s kinda like that guy that owns a golf course in Scotland...

 

[GrayHare]

Now that I've finally gotten used to "Retirement Early" I see there's another RE.

Speaking of energy, I don't have ERD50's posting energy, but I agree with his analyses.

 

[aja8888]

These RE hype articles remind me of flying cars for all....

Originally Posted by Rianne

I hate to add a link, but it directly speaks to your concerns ERD50. I'm not an energy expert, not an engineer, not a scientist, not a politician. I can't shout you down or convince you to agree with me. Let's get back to this discussion in 5 years. I'll leave it at that.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...-energy-future

 

[Winemaker]

Somehow the coal industry will always get its 2 cents in the discussion. The train has left the track. RE is the future. ERD50 if you have another solution, be happy to hear it.

I will speak for the coal industry.

As long as the US wants to have a manufacturing based economy, physics dictates a coal, natural gas, oil or nuclear generated base power system. Presently, you can process that energy at the source, transport it at 138kv many miles and run your 4160V motors. If you choose another style economy, you can can have all the RE you want, lighting your banks of LED lights. And freeze in the dark.

If battery powered equipment was/is feasible, we actually would be using them in the mining industry. We demand reliable powerful equipment that is safe, creates no fire hazard, and carries a load. Present battery technology doesn't cut it.

 

[Rianne]

I must be an optimist. When I think of coal, oil or nuclear I don't think of "safe" and "clean." I think dirty and destructive. So I read publications such as:

https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/clean-energy

I hope for a cleaner, safer environment for future generations. We don't have kids so I can say, I'm glad I'm old and I'm glad I don't have kids. I see countries like China and India who have no regulations on coal or pollution. The Chinese live with surgical masks on their face. It's dangerous for them to even go outside because of the health hazards. Water and air are pretty significant to life. Those destructive sources of energy eventually will destroy life. The oil or coal industry can't stop a hurricane, tornado, massive forest fires, drought, volcanoes or flooding. If we use the sun and wind to capture our energy maybe these increasingly destructive patterns will lessen.

 

[harley]

Religious war. Press ignore button.

 

[target2019]

I must be an optimist. When I think of coal, oil or nuclear I don't think of "safe" and "clean." I think dirty and destructive. So I read publications such as:

https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/clean-energy

I hope for a cleaner, safer environment for future generations. We don't have kids so I can say, I'm glad I'm old and I'm glad I don't have kids. I see countries like China and India who have no regulations on coal or pollution. The Chinese live with surgical masks on their face. It's dangerous for them to even go outside because of the health hazards. Water and air are pretty significant to life. Those destructive sources of energy eventually will destroy life. The oil or coal industry can't stop a hurricane, tornado, massive forest fires, drought, volcanoes or flooding. If we use the sun and wind to capture our energy maybe these increasingly destructive patterns will lessen.

I agree with your conclusions. The difficult part is change. A mentor once told me that trying to change anything about the company we worked for, was like "turning a container ship on a dime." It takes a while for a 180-maneuver. I can make decisions for our household, and cast a vote or two. Beyond that, I realize we are simply waiting for evolution of thought, which takes very long periods of time.

 

[Totoro]

The 57% should be based on the entire grid they supply/draw from, not just Scotland's consumption. What would that number be?

Since they are connected to the entire European grid ... well goes back to the point: good luck finding lots of high income areas unconnected to any larger grid.

Note that these connections have been there since before renewables were a thing - because they are intermittent too and it is cost efficient to have interconnections. Renewables benefit even more with higher connectivity. what's wrong with that?

I'll just roll back to the facts here - first off: the cheapest cost of production for fossil fuels is roughly 5 cents per kwh without taking into account external costs (emissions). Consider then:

• Solar farms are being tendered today in high irradiance areas for below 2 cents per kwh (e.g. Saudi Arabia)
• Wind farms on-shore are dropping below 4 cents per kwh (e.g. Canada)
• Large hydro is below 3 cents per kwh
• Geothermal can be below 5 cents per kwh

In addition the cost curve of solar is 10%-15%, and wind is not far behind with no signs of slowing down much. Note that you can actually overbuild when the costs drop so much: just waste the excess electricity or use it for longer term purposes (e.g. desalination reservoirs).

CSP with 8+ hours of storage is approaching 25 cents per kwh in the mean time, steadily dropping as well.

Battery systems effectively made gas peaker plants obsolete recently (ref. Australia) in the 1 hr time frame.

So what we are left with as problem areas are areas that:

• Have no significant geothermal sources
• Have no large hydro resources
• Cannot connect to areas that have a surplus of these
• and cannot connect to areas that have surplus wind resources at night

From what I've read, even the worst locations in the world can still get up to 80% renewable without much storage.

Is that last 20% in those locations an issue? Yes. The continental United States is a good example.

Is that solveable for a lower overall cost? Not sure, probably not right now.
Given cost trends, will that change: yes, and quite soon
Will we need to rethink our infrastructure: absolutely. Texas having its own independent grid for example is rather unfortunate.


Nice study summary here, where I took quite a few numbers from: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files...tion/2018/Jan/IRENA_2017_Power_Costs_2018.pdf

 

[Rianne]

I agree with your conclusions. The difficult part is change. A mentor once told me that trying to change anything about the company we worked for, was like "turning a container ship on a dime." It takes a while for a 180-maneuver. I can make decisions for our household, and cast a vote or two. Beyond that, I realize we are simply waiting for evolution of thought, which takes very long periods of time.

Agree and well taken. The financial impact of change has to make sense to all. On a personal note, would I give up my car, A/C, HVAC, electricity to make a drastic change immediately, no. It has to make sense with my checkbook.

I made the change with RE, because it was cheaper. It is a city aggregate program moving in the right direction IMHO.

 

[ERD50]

Since they are connected to the entire European grid ... well goes back to the point: good luck finding lots of high income areas unconnected to any larger grid.

Note that these connections have been there since before renewables were a thing - because they are intermittent too and it is cost efficient to have interconnections. Renewables benefit even more with higher connectivity. what's wrong with that?
...

Nothing is 'wrong' with using the grid in conjunction with RE, it makes perfect sense to do so. What is wrong is the presentation of the numbers. The % is overstated if you don't use the connected grid as the denominator. And then people think everyone can do this, but they can't. And then people think we have solutions, but we don't. So they stop pushing for alternatives, because they think the problem will be solved in 5 years (or whatever). That can mean it takes longer for change to come about!

...
I'll just roll back to the facts here - first off: the cheapest cost of production for fossil fuels is roughly 5 cents per kwh without taking into account external costs (emissions). Consider then:

• Solar farms are being tendered today in high irradiance areas for below 2 cents per kwh (e.g. Saudi Arabia)
• Wind farms on-shore are dropping below 4 cents per kwh (e.g. Canada)
• Large hydro is below 3 cents per kwh
• Geothermal can be below 5 cents per kwh

In addition the cost curve of solar is 10%-15%, and wind is not far behind with no signs of slowing down much. Note that you can actually overbuild when the costs drop so much: just waste the excess electricity or use it for longer term purposes (e.g. desalination reservoirs). ...

That's great, and my point has been - it's only great to a point. I'll make an (somewhat silly) analogy to illustrate the problem with those numbers:

I see two cars for sale. They are the same in every way, except car A costs $50,000 and car B costs $10,000. Easy decision, right?

Oh, wait - Car B only starts sometimes, and sometimes it will stop in the middle of traffic, or slow to a crawl. When it stops/crawls, it may not return to normal for days, maybe even weeks. But there may be a fix in 10 years, but we don't know the cost, and it might take up all the space in the trunk and back seats.
​

Gee, it's not the same value proposition is it? That's why I don't like these cost comparisons to be used in general terms. Those costs are fine when we talk about RE as a small enough % of the grid so it doesn't cause issues. Beyond that point, those numbers don't mean much.

... CSP with 8+ hours of storage is approaching 25 cents per kwh in the mean time, steadily dropping as well.

Battery systems effectively made gas peaker plants obsolete recently (ref. Australia) in the 1 hr time frame. ...

Hopefully, Concentrated Solar Power (Thermal - large arrays of mirror) has a bright future (or "catches on fire" - both bad puns!), but I'm skeptical about any wide-spread adoption in the next decade. According to a quick skim at wiki, only 110 MW was installed in 2016, not much and also consider that's not 24/7 either (though the thermal storage helps).

I suspect we will see more batteries used for peaking as their price comes down, but overall that's a very small % of the grid power - filling in the delta between a one hour average and the peak. That's a short time and a small %. Not going to make a big dent in averages, I don't think. Oh, it may not be lithium batteries, for these uses size and weight aren't that important (like they are for a car), there are other chemistry types being looked into.

...
So what we are left with as problem areas are areas that:

• Have no significant geothermal sources
• Have no large hydro resources
• Cannot connect to areas that have a surplus of these
• and cannot connect to areas that have surplus wind resources at night

From what I've read, even the worst locations in the world can still get up to 80% renewable without much storage.

Is that last 20% in those locations an issue? Yes. The continental United States is a good example.

Is that solveable for a lower overall cost? Not sure, probably not right now.
Given cost trends, will that change: yes, and quite soon
Will we need to rethink our infrastructure: absolutely. Texas having its own independent grid for example is rather unfortunate. ...

Yes, those limitations do apply to the US (my focus). That's part of my problem, people see these headlines "XYZ country has gone 9,000% renewable!", and they think the solution is right around the corner for the USA. It just ain't so. All the alternative tech will improve, and nibble away at the problem, but big changes are far away, I'm quite certain. Big systems don't change fast, even when the superior technology is available.

Thanks for the informative, thoughtful post. I'll look at your link later when I have some time.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I must be an optimist. When I think of coal, oil or nuclear I don't think of "safe" and "clean." I think dirty and destructive. So I read publications such as:

https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/clean-energy

...

I'm not sure where "optimist" plays into this? I also see coal as dirty and unsafe (mining is dangerous), though oil less so, and nuclear much, much less so. I consider myself a 'realist'.

Optimism can be great, but it can actually be counterproductive if it is misplaced optimism.

If you study that document, and supplement it with other info, it should become apparent that there are no 'silver bullets' there. Yes, some things that will help supplement our power, but no silver bullet.

.... I hope for a cleaner, safer environment for future generations. We don't have kids so I can say, I'm glad I'm old and I'm glad I don't have kids. I see countries like China and India who have no regulations on coal or pollution. The Chinese live with surgical masks on their face. It's dangerous for them to even go outside because of the health hazards. Water and air are pretty significant to life. Those destructive sources of energy eventually will destroy life. The oil or coal industry can't stop a hurricane, tornado, massive forest fires, drought, volcanoes or flooding. If we use the sun and wind to capture our energy maybe these increasingly destructive patterns will lessen.

And I also hope for a cleaner, safer environment (who doesn't?). Let's figure out how to get there and not let unicorns, puppies, and rainbows distract us.

In the US, we have improved the environment by leaps and bounds (you can look it up if you want numbers - I've got to run). People were wearing face masks in LA in the 50's-60's. Cars emit a small fraction of the pollution they used to, We are not China, I only see us improving. I'm not sure what your point is with that, but you're an optimist?

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

I think one of the problems is that being connected does not mean a lot if you cannot move the amount needed to where it is needed...


As an example (I do not think they have fixed this yet) Texas had a lot of wind energy... but they do not have enough lines to get it to Houston or Dallas who needs it the most... T Boone was pushing to get that infrastructure built but did not want to pay for it... (looks like he abandoned this back in the recession)...


ERD50, it is not the whole interconnection that should be the denominator, but what can be supplied by that connection and what can be produced locally....


BTW, I bet they still do this... back in the 70s I worked at a building that could produce enough electricity to run the whole building and a bit more... there were times that the utility company called and asked us to go offline since they were hitting a peak... I think we got paid well for doing that...



I do not know if they still do this, but they did offer incentives to sign up for rolling cuts to your HVAC system... IOW, you would agree that they could turn your AC off for up to 1 hour (maybe 30 minutes) so they could reduce a peak demand for a bit...


There are ways to help reduce a peak if needed...

 

[meierlde]

As an example (I do not think they have fixed this yet) Texas had a lot of wind energy... but they do not have enough lines to get it to Houston or Dallas who needs it the most... T Boone was pushing to get that infrastructure built but did not want to pay for it... (looks like he abandoned this back in the recession)...


.


BTW, I bet they still do this.

Actually the CREZ project is done finished in 2013. and there are no longer wind curtailments (when the transmission lines can't handle all the wind) It cost about $7 billion but is now complete. There are even wind plants outside the area that ercot provides electrictiy to such as the large farms along I-40 west of Amarillo. ERCOT has an advantage in that being only in Tx it does not need the Feds to get involved. So the infrastructure was build by the electric industry.

 

[ERD50]

...
ERD50, it is not the whole interconnection that should be the denominator, but what can be supplied by that connection and what can be produced locally.....

Agreed. That may not be an easy calculation, if power is pulled from a nearby grid, does it then end up pulling (or pushing less), onto its neighboring grid? Starting to sound like butterfly wings and typhoons!

An exact number isn't so important, but it just bothers me that they spew out these big numbers and give the impression that anyone could do it. Well, if everyone does it, there's no one left to push/pull to/from.

...
I do not know if they still do this, but they did offer incentives to sign up for rolling cuts to your HVAC system... IOW, you would agree that they could turn your AC off for up to 1 hour (maybe 30 minutes) so they could reduce a peak demand for a bit...

There are ways to help reduce a peak if needed...

They offer that in IL. I wonder how much it helps them, because if they shut off my A/C for 15 minutes, its just going to run that much longer when it comes back on.

OK, I looked it up, 15 minutes out of every half hour (I was thinking every hour). So on a hot day, with these running near 100%, I guess that could reduce the power usage of these homes by nearly 50%, and if they turned everyone off at once, they could get a full 15 minute 'break' - which maybe helps get some transformers cooled down a bit.

They only credit me $5/month for 4 summer months, so $20 max per year. We recently had a big group here on the hottest day of the year. A/C was running 100%, so no, I don't want to give it up just when I need it the most.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Actually the CREZ project is done finished in 2013. and there are no longer wind curtailments (when the transmission lines can't handle all the wind) It cost about $7 billion but is now complete. There are even wind plants outside the area that ercot provides electrictiy to such as the large farms along I-40 west of Amarillo. ERCOT has an advantage in that being only in Tx it does not need the Feds to get involved. So the infrastructure was build by the electric industry.

Thanks... I knew it was a very expensive build... surprised that they got the money to build it...


My mom is 100% wind right now... I have been off and on when I renew, but they will not give me the low rate if I renew... I had told them I would leave and they said go ahead... well... OK...


As an aside, I just renewed with my current company and even though I am paying 25% more than my last contract it was still cheaper than any other offer out there... first time that has happened for the many years I have had a choice of providers...