gas price thread

[JackFlorey]

Solar is not very effective in northern Europe..and no good most places at night.

Germany gets between 3 and 3.5 equivalent sun-hours a day average - which is about the same as Kentucky or Northern California, both places where solar has been successful.

You are correct, it doesn't work at night. But:

1) wind does. Onshore wind peaks between 8pm and midnight, just as solar is ramping down to zero.
2) it doesn't matter anyway. Every gigawatt-hour you generate is a gigawatt-hour of gas you don't have to burn. If your problem is a natural gas shortage, more intermittent generation solves that for you.

Wind has been hugely installed in germany (60 +GW), but it also has failed due to the unpredicability and inconsistency of the weather.

Failed? It has increased every year since 1995. Since 2010 it has increased by 1-5 gigawatts a year. If that's "failing" then they will fail continuously until most of their country is powered by solar and wind.

Infact, both are recieving a lot of resistance to further expansion both socially and financially ( its costing too much for too little return !)

Both are receiving a lot of resistance from oil and gas investors, oil and gas companies and Russian sympathizers who fear losing money/power/influence.

The UK , who have been big and loud for wind power, are now planning multiple new Nuclear plants for energy security.

Good for them. It's a great base load power source. It also takes ~20 years to build one, and it is by far the most expensive form of power we have. So if they can afford it, and they can live with the higher power prices, AND they have two decades - great.

 

[speedmd]

Ha !, so you think EV sales will double year on year....an exponential rate of increase?

No, not at all. Not long term. Also with raising material prices, that would be much too optimistic. A few years may be possible given the shock to the oil market and many folks now wanting to go a new route. Anyone's guess. I do remember Nokia thinking they were king and ignoring the iphone and then android until it was much too late. Around seven years or so if I remember correctly. GM will not save themselves with a ev hummer. Neither will toyota with a byd corola. They are in for a rough patch.

 

[JackFlorey]

No, not at all. Not long term. Also with raising material prices, that would be much too optimistic. A few years may be possible given the shock to the oil market and many folks now wanting to go a new route.

Agreed. It will grow exponentially only until it reaches 40-50% penetration. Then something significant will happen. The demand for gas will decline, and the price of gas will crater. This of course will lead to more gas car sales. It will also lead to oil companies abandoning tight oil, since it's not profitable below about $70 a barrel. This will dry up supplies and the price will creep higher. At that point EV sales will continue to increase, but much more slowly.

 

[Hillhater]

Solar is not very effective in northern Europe..and no good most places at night.

Germany gets between 3 and 3.5 equivalent sun-hours a day average - which is about the same as Kentucky or Northern California, both places where solar has been successful.

You are correct, it doesn't work at night. But:

1) wind does. Onshore wind peaks between 8pm and midnight, just as solar is ramping down to zero.
2) it doesn't matter anyway. Every gigawatt-hour you generate is a gigawatt-hour of gas you don't have to burn. If your problem is a natural gas shortage, more intermittent generation solves that for you.

That is the theory, ..unfortunately no one told mother nature, so there are long periods of low/no wind and overcast skies such that a full 100% back up capacity from fossils is frequently required,..so they actually have a dual generation system, neither of which can operate efficiently,

Wind has been hugely installed in germany (60 +GW), but it also has failed due to the unpredicability and inconsistency of the weather.

Failed? It has increased every year since 1995. Since 2010 it has increased by 1-5 gigawatts a year. If that's "failing" then they will fail continuously until most of their country is powered by solar and wind.

Sure, they have continuously installed more and more Wind and Solar,...but it has not eliminated the need for 100% fossil back up to avoid blackouts, ..and never will.

Infact, both are recieving a lot of resistance to further expansion both socially and financially ( its costing too much for too little return !)

Both are receiving a lot of resistance from oil and gas investors, oil and gas companies and Russian sympathizers who fear losing money/power/influence.....

maybe, but the biggest pushback is coming internally from civilians who dont want any more forrests chopped down for wind farm builds, and power line installations,....also the government are realising how much the move to RE is actually costing the country, and pushing up electricity costs.

 

[JackFlorey]

That is the theory, ..unfortunately no one told mother nature, so there are long periods of low/no wind and overcast skies such that a full 100% back up capacity from fossils is frequently required,..so they actually have a dual generation system, neither of which can operate efficiently.

?? Both, of course, can operate efficiently.

Europe is in a situation now where they have enough generation but not enough natural gas. So they want to reduce the amount they use. Solar and wind do that. For example, with enough solar, they can shut down most of their generation from 10 to 2pm. That's a significant savings of natural gas, on the order of 10-15%. Land based wind, by generating during the highest load parts of the day, does even more - 20-25% with sufficient wind. Reducing your natural gas needs by 40% is something that Europe is going to be VERY interested in with Russia's recent aggression.

Sure, they have continuously installed more and more Wind and Solar,...but it has not eliminated the need for 100% fossil back up to avoid blackouts

They already have that 100% fossil fuel backup. Solar and wind reduce the amount of natural gas they need. They are short of natural gas. So it works.

maybe, but the biggest pushback is coming internally from civilians who dont want any more forrests chopped down for wind farm builds, and power line installations

Right. These are generally the same people clamoring for more roads, more Wal-Marts (or Aldi's) and more power/water/sewer lines to support all that. Their outrage is very, very selective.

Re: forests chopped down for wind farm builds:

 

[calab]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-suncor-to-ditch-solar-and-wind-assets-focus-on-hydrogen-and-renewable/

Suncor to ditch solar and wind assets, focus on hydrogen and renewable fuels

 

[Hillhater]

That is the theory, ..unfortunately no one told mother nature, so there are long periods of low/no wind and overcast skies such that a full 100% back up capacity from fossils is frequently required,..so they actually have a dual generation system, neither of which can operate efficiently.

?? Both, of course, can operate efficiently.

For optimum efficiency, they have to operate at optimum output level
Wind and solar never achieve that, often <10% capacity, even though they are prioritised for supply.
Gas, coal, as backup, rarely get to run at designed efficient output levels.
See attached link..

Europe is in a situation now where they have enough generation but not enough natural gas. So they want to reduce the amount they use. Solar and wind do that. For example, with enough solar, they can shut down most of their generation from 10 to 2pm. That's a significant savings of natural gas, on the order of 10-15%. Land based wind, by generating during the highest load parts of the day, does even more - 20-25% with sufficient wind. Reducing your natural gas needs by 40% is something that Europe is going to be VERY interested in with Russia's recent aggression.

You know full well they cannot just shut down gas or coal plants and restart them a few hours later. ..OCGT maybe, but they are very inefficient. And there is never enough solar or wind to shut off all fossil generation anyway !
Germany already does maximise its RE generation to minimise fossil usage,..but due to the high variability of RE, they cannot predict future fossil demand. The gas supply issue is now forcing them to re-open mothballed coal generators.

maybe, but the biggest pushback is coming internally from civilians who dont want any more forrests chopped down for wind farm builds, and power line installations

Right. These are generally the same people clamoring for more roads, more Wal-Marts (or Aldi's) and more power/water/sewer lines to support all that. Their outrage is very, very selective.

Sure, the general public,..and the government finance ministry,.... but they know they can have all their luxuries without widespread remodeling of their countryside, and collapse of their economy...they had it previously with coal, Nuclear, and Gas, and their electricity consumption has not increased....only the prices.

[/quote]
Germany clearing 1,000-year-old forest to make way for massive wind park..
https://dailyangle.com/articles/germany-clearing-1-000-year-old-forest-to-make-way-for-massive-wind-park

https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&week=13

 

[stan.distortion]

Hard to distinguish between reservoir hydro and wind in that pic, interesting all the same
The main issue with wind is storage and the main issue with storage is incentive. The private sector can easily provide the masses of storage needed but it has little incentive to do so without more dynamic electricity pricing. Excess wind can lead to a nightmare scenario for the grid, too much power and nowhere for it to go. Apply simple economics and the grid is paying people to take it away and paying them again to buy it back when there's high demand, even those stupidly overpriced Tesla UPSs become a goldmine and even at relatively light variance they're still no-brainer cost effective, buy when there's low demand and supply at peak.

Even buying EVs just to use as batteries makes sense with dynamic pricing and pumped hydro is a no-brainer pretty much anywhere with hills and it's not technically challenging for the grid from a pricing perspective, nothing more than putting a figure on known load conditions, it could be updated by the millisecond with little more than relatively simple software. The technical challenges to distribution are a different story, you could easily have a scenario where power lines are impossible to shut down even in an emergency and we need a big re-think on how our grids work to overcome that, smothering them in damn big switches would work but there's endless scope for innovation.

Hydrogen isn't a solution, it's a transport and storage medium (and a bloody good one) but it's not an energy source. Sure, we can get it out of hydrocarbons but that's no better than just burning the damn things.

 

[neptronix]

Remember how i said this is going to result in a mega scramble to invest in electric infrastructure? here's the beginning of that:

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...uclear-reactors-amid-energy-strategy-83928424

Britain plans to build eight new nuclear reactors and expand production of wind energy as it seeks to reduce dependence on oil and natural gas from Russia and other foreign suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine

 

[Ianhill]

Elon seemed less alien than usual even if the texas plant reveal was a bit like the beetles gigs with girls screaming front row,lucky bastard.

If the future involves an optumis chilling out behind the wheel of a cybertruck autonomously working out his attack on the corrupt oil wealth, im well up for it jump in the back have a rant over the times with it and set it off on dissent just like a real taxi driver.

 

[JackFlorey]

For optimum efficiency, they have to operate at optimum output level

Yep. And they can't do that, because people don't draw an optimum amount of power. So with or without solar/wind, they have to throttle up and down (or shut down) during the day. Their efficiency is impacted in both cases.

Wind and solar never achieve that, often <10% capacity, even though they are prioritised for supply.

You say that as if it's true. In reality:

Land wind capacity ranges from 26% to 52%. In 2019, wind capacity factor in the US was 35%.
Solar is 10 to 30% capacity, with the US averaging 21% in 2019.

Gas, coal, as backup, rarely get to run at designed efficient output levels.

True. And as primary power sources, they rarely get to run at designed efficient output levels either. This problem is called the load-following problem, and it has led to the development of fast-startup combined cycle gas plants. Since CCS gas plants operate most efficiently at or close to maximum power, utilities have two choices - run them at half power (or less) to load follow, or run them at full power / shut them off. If you have enough gas plants and your grid will support it, you can simply shut down and restart plants as needed throughout the day. This gives you coarse resolution over power, but is much more efficient. To accomplish this, more and more CCS gas plants are being refitted to support rapid startup, to make this more practical.

And this works whether you are load following without solar/wind, or load following with solar/wind. The difference is that with solar/wind those plants are off for longer, and you use far less gas.

In many cases, in fact, wind and solar let you AVOID shutdowns. Look at your own chart. Most of those coal plants (which are even harder to shut down and restart) and nuclear plants (which are close to impossible to shut down) are allowed to run at about the same level all day - because solar/wind/pumped storage are providing for all the peaks.

You know full well they cannot just shut down gas or coal plants and restart them a few hours later

See above.

Sure, the general public,..and the government finance ministry,.... but they know they can have all their luxuries without widespread remodeling of their countryside, and collapse of their economy..

Yes. They know they can have this with renewables as well as coal. And renewables doesn't kill wildlife by the millions, or require mountaintop removal coal mining, or huge ash ponds, or kill thousands of people.

Fun fact - in the US, there was recently a day (Tuesday, March 29) where wind generated more than any other source of energy except natural gas over the course of the day - over 2 terawatt-hours. More than nuclear, more than coal, more than hydro. Such days will happen more and more often as wind continues to expand - and will save a lot of natural gas.

 

[JackFlorey]

The private sector can easily provide the masses of storage needed but it has little incentive to do so without more dynamic electricity pricing. Excess wind can lead to a nightmare scenario for the grid, too much power and nowhere for it to go. Apply simple economics and the grid is paying people to take it away and paying them again to buy it back when there's high demand, even those stupidly overpriced Tesla UPSs become a goldmine and even at relatively light variance they're still no-brainer cost effective, buy when there's low demand and supply at peak.

Agree 100%. And more and more people are buying EV's, which are going to be a huge source of load that can be time-shifted. No one cares when their car charges, as long as it gets more energy than they use during the day.

Right now cars are set to charge at midnight (when load is low and land based wind is at peak generation) and occasionally at 10am (when load is relatively low and solar is at its peak.) Going to real time pricing would allow EV's to charge only when power was cheap, with enough intelligence to ensure that the car always got some minimum amount of charging. That will save users hundreds of dollars a year while also stabilizing the grid. Win/win.

Hydrogen isn't a solution, it's a transport and storage medium (and a bloody good one) but it's not an energy source. Sure, we can get it out of hydrocarbons but that's no better than just burning the damn things.

Yep. Hydrogen MIGHT be a solution if, someday, we get high temperature gas reactors that can do thermal dissociation of water. That makes hydrogen cheap and allows a reactor to produce both hydrogen AND electricity. However, even then, you will be better off combining it with atmospheric CO2 to make methane and water, then use the methane as natural gas.

 

[Hillhater]

Remember how i said this is going to result in a mega scramble to invest in electric infrastructure? here's the beginning of that:

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...uclear-reactors-amid-energy-strategy-83928424

Britain plans to build eight new nuclear reactors and expand production of wind energy as it seeks to reduce dependence on oil and natural gas from Russia and other foreign suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine

And ask yourself why they didnt decide to go with wind for that new capacity instead of Nuclear ?

 

[Hillhater]

Hard to distinguish between reservoir hydro and wind in that pic, interesting all the same

? The Wind is green, and the reservoir (pumped) Hydro is the little blue peaks under the green. !

....The private sector can easily provide the masses of storage needed .......

Can you explain how they might do that “easily” ?
Germanys only realistic “storage” option is to trade surplus production with other European countries, and receive back when it has shortages.
All explained on that energy site.

 

[JackFlorey]

And ask yourself why they didnt decide to go with wind for that new capacity instead of Nuclear ?

They did both. They have committed to another 16GW of wind before 2030, to go along with their 12GW of nuclear reactors - which won't be ready until 2042.

 

[Hillhater]

And ask yourself why they didnt decide to go with wind for that new capacity instead of Nuclear ?

They did both. They have committed to another 16GW of wind before 2030, to go along with their 12GW of nuclear reactors - which won't be ready until 2042.

You missed (deliberately avoided ) the point as to why they dont simply install 12 GW more wind instead of those expensive and delayed Nuclear facilities ?

 

[Hillhater]

Land wind capacity ranges from 26% to 52%. In 2019, wind capacity factor in the US was 35%.
Solar is 10 to 30% capacity, with the US averaging 21% in 2019.

As usual you are avoiding facts..
You are quoting annual “AVERAGES”, When the reality is that both wind and solar are often at 0 “ZERO” % efficiency !..
Even though they have priority access to supply.

As to the remainder of your post, i have come to the conclusion that you are denying the reality and only chose to consider those senarios that suit your personal view ...
So i wont waste time responding to comments that have no basis in reality.
Germany has pushed harder than most countries to swing over to RE power, investing billions over the past 30 years in various RE technologies,...but the only result they have is a landscape covered in ineffective Wind turbines, the highest electricity cost in Europe and a economy in the basement.
Their Government now realise thar they cannot afford this green experiment and are looking for a new way forward.

 

[neptronix]

And ask yourself why they didnt decide to go with wind for that new capacity instead of Nuclear ?

I'm aware of the pro/con of each and why they chose nuclear.

But my point remains, that energy solutions always follow energy crises

 

[JackFlorey]

As usual you are avoiding facts..
You are quoting annual “AVERAGES”,

Nope. I am quoting availability. But you knew that and are just intentionally misunderstanding to have something to argue about.

So i wont waste time responding to comments that have no basis in reality.

You promise? Great! We shall see.

ou missed (deliberately avoided ) the point as to why they dont simply install 12 GW more wind instead of those expensive and delayed Nuclear facilities ?

Because diversity in power supply is good.

Nuclear is great for base load power - power you always need even at 3am in the morning. It's hideously expensive, so you best not buy too much of it. And it is absolutely awful for load following. You don't want to try to shut a nuclear power plant down at night and restart it in the morning. Even just varying the power is difficult - the San Onofre plant, for example, would remove boron during the day when they needed more power with huge filters, then add it back at night to slow down the reaction. It was dangerous, painful and expensive, since that water is highly radioactive and the filters take a lot of maintenance.

Wind is great for peaking power. Offshore wind generates energy in the evening, when power demand peaks and solar is going off-line. And land based wind generates power late at night, when EV's are going to tend to charge. Again, refer to your diagram above. Wind is the cheapest source of energy in terms of $/kw - and it goes up quickly, in years instead of decades.

And if they are smart they are planning even more diverse sources of power. Which they are. They are adding 16GW of grid scale storage to store energy from intermittent renewables over the next 10 years. They are adding 200MW a year of solar. They are even adding tidal energy, although so far that's small scale - hundreds of kilowatts. For an island nation, though, that's a very promising approach.

 

[neptronix]

I'm actually FOR nuclear power, even considering i grew up next door to a nuclear power plant built on a friggin' faultline.

Pros:
+ I never knew what pollution was, nor felt it's effects, until i moved out of town.
+ Our power was super reliable and outages were always very short.

Cons:
+ Our electricity was always expensive.
+ Could have died.
+ Taxpayers were forced into subsidizing the plant because of it's expense.
+ Once it was found out that it was built on a fault line.. getting rid of the plant for safety reasons was and still is impossible.

Now you wonder why nobody wants nuclear... these are among the reasons why.

Now.. add 'i don't get fleeced by the power company because of fossil fuels wars' to the pro list and Nuclear starts to looks a lot more appealing.

 

[DogDipstick]

Nuclear cost too much. Mainly because of all the safety regulations my dad wrote in the '70s.

Show me one plant that did not go over budget. One. Cost is ALWAYS passed on to the consumer.

 

[ZeroEm]

Have always been on the fence about nuclear power. Have moved away from it. Radioactive pollution can not be cleaned up, used fuel can not be disposed of. It's the most expensive power. So why? Don't see the plus side anymore.

Fear this thread has wondered a bit.

I'm still a Gas user, Natural Gas (Methane). Very cheap to heat with compared to electric or even heat pumps.

If people really listen you will hear that they are running out of places to drill for easy oil. They want to drill in national parks and the Artic. Are these are the last places for cheap oil. What happens after that in 10 yrs? We will be right back where we are now.

 

[Ianhill]

Either battery technology matures or hydrogen production costs reduce what ever wins will power the worlds untied mobilty into the coming centurys.

One things for sure theres issues in turning the world to solar like water availability is already messing up computer cpu fabs its a case of all these bright ideas no where near the resources or land to create it for all equally.

Its clear those that can solar should then northern areas use what wind is gifted and adopt nuclear to top up whats naturally available create new methods of heating/powering the masses with new geothermal locations etc.

Ah heaven for bid thats what britian has proposed and is doing but hey can't please them all theres ship building solar living hipsters that will always know better but put in charge shit would fall south fast.

 

[Ianhill]

Another issues is finer process nodes are more efficent at use but making the chip is alot more power and water intensive so swapping to a new pc aint green one bit keep using old tech were we can no need for latest pc to run a simple cnc machine etc, channels like linus tech etc has co2 figures simular to small lorry delivered cement business in reality.

 

[The Toecutter]

Sure, if you say so,.. and folk like Musk have been saying for years that their NMC packs are near $100/kWh !...
......but where are they ?

Those batteries are never made available "at cost" at the retail level. For the year 2020, the auto industry average production cost for EV battery packs is $137/kWh according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

I assume you know that “only” 60kW on 48v, would require 1200+ amps ?
.. which “low cost” 48v , 60kW, motor and controller are you thinking of ?

I'm aware of this amount of current being required. The trick is to use high-current, low voltage IGBTs when making the inverter. This keeps component costs down versus going to a higher-voltage, less current system of similar power capability. By keeping the pole count on the electric motor down, it would result in a powerband appropriate for a car.

There is no shortage of systems used in cheap Chinese EVs in the $1,XXX retail price range that come halfway to that 60kW spec(the cost would be a lot less if bought in bulk or even at manufacturer cost), which in a streamliner, 20-30 kW is still more than enough power to reach 90 mph. Mild hybrid systems used in modern ICE cars have most of the components there as well. Re-designing the inverter with higher current capability and going to a lower pole count motor would be relatively trivial and inexpensive, compared to increasing voltage for the same desired power and having to use more expensive transistors. Getting to 50-60 kW peak is what would give it acceptable acceleration, for not much added cost versus the Chinese offerings, on the order of $1XX-2XX more expense. The cost per kW of an inverter does not scale linearly, and each added kW gets cheaper than the previous kW.

There is a downside to what I'm proposing. Increased I^2*R losses. You'll need heavier duty wiring, which will add 30+ lbs to the car. The mechanicals will need to be able to handle the torque, which is also slightly more weight, probably 30-50 lbs to the entire car. But the goal is to design an affordable low-cost EV, not a performance car. The Chinese are well ahead of everyone on this game, which is a shame.

A stock VW Beetle engine even back then would have been 20+ kW. !

First, when I originally quoted your post, you were missing a number and I thought you meant some small number of kW, not specifically 1 kW. But due to such low drag coefficient, a converted to EV Volkhardt V2 Sagitta could probably do 70 mph on ~6-7 kW, even factoring in that it is close to 2,000 lbs. An original first model VW Beetle will require significantly more than 5 kW to do 70 mph and wouldn't even reach it on its stock 18 kW engine, topping out at 62 mph. The Volkhardt V2 Sagitta could reach 93 mph on the original Beetle engine with the same amount of power.

That said, it is possible to build a 1-person car capable of maintaining 70 mph on just 1 kW. If my legs could produce 1 kW for long enough, my Milan SL velomobile would reach 70 mph on flat ground. I can currently reach about 50 mph, unmotorized, probably using somewhere around 500W to do so.

The benefits of aero also apply to gasoline-powered cars every bit as much as EVs. We could have had 40 mpg V8 musclecars in the 1970s and 70 mpg 4-cylinder midsized cars in the 1990s if load reduction would have been a focus in vehicle design. It never was a focus, and still isn't, to the detriment of everyone. Making cars have more mass and drag also makes cars a lot more expensive to build and operate than they need to be.