# FERC decides no rate change for coal & nuke power



## begreen (Jan 10, 2018)

Looks like grid resilience and security won the day and coal's days are numbered. There will be no raise in rates for coal, oil and nuclear power. FERC decided to invest in strengthening the grid instead and called subsidizing coal, oil and nuclear a bad investment.
"The Proposed Rule had little, if anything, to do with resilience, and was instead aimed at subsidizing certain uncompetitive electric generation technologies."

https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-responds-ferc-decision-proposed-rule
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...nergy-departments-bid-to-prop-up-coal-nuclear


----------



## georgepds (Jan 10, 2018)

Read about the guy (Murray )behind the guy(Perry)behind the rule

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html

He lost this one... but got most of what he wanted


----------



## begreen (Jan 10, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Read about the guy (Murray )behind the guy(Perry)behind the rule
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html
> 
> He lost this one... but got most of what he wanted


These are smart guys. I'll sign whatever they want.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 10, 2018)

No where near as bright as the former head of the DOE, Ernest Moniz or Chu before him

I'm really tired of the parade of second rate sycophants, who owe their position to their competence as lickspittles and little more

Kudos to the commissioners of FERC for standing up for competent engineering policy . It is an obscure position for to those who don't follow utility policy , but from this obscurity they showed  reasonable judgement, and set an example for other appointees

Well that, and nearly everyone else in the nation who had the slightest grasp of energy markets opposed the policy, and said so  in  the open comment period


----------



## vinny11950 (Jan 10, 2018)

As much as I like to think they did the right thing for the sake of doing good policy, I also think they were backed up by a heavy-weight player in the electricity market - fracking gas producers.  Without that cover, I don't think we get this decision.

Here is a good Twitter thread on the struggling nuclear power plants.


----------



## Elbinwyp (Jan 11, 2018)

Do you all follow energy policy/markets as a hobby or is it related to your professions?


----------



## georgepds (Jan 11, 2018)

For me.. it started when I first put in grid tied solar in 2000.

Back then, if I overproduced, they would reimburse me at the long term rate they paid the Seabrook nuclear plant. Good wok if you can get it... buy at pennies, sell at dollars

Made me pay attention

Best way to keep up on policy and industry trends is utilitydive.com

Best way for recent  power trends  is the https://www.eia.gov, especially today in energy


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 11, 2018)

You guys had me at lickspittle.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 14, 2018)

Not sure if it was mentioned, but 2 of 3 of the NY nuc plants shown in the twitter post above were on the list under false pretenses. Both Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 quickly submitted "retirement notifications" after it became clear that there was an energy supply squeeze and that the government could be squeezed to offer lucrative permanent subsidies. The Governor blinked and the Nuc plants got generous state subsidies paid for by the ratepayers, all spun as a "jobs" bill.

The 2000 Mw of power from the Indian Point plants didn't fare so well. It was politically advantageous to pressure their "retirement", so the State fast tracked approval for a pair of 750 Mw combined cycle gas burners and some other project I've forgotten, and suddenly we don't need that nuc power. Plus, if the Gov gets 2-3000Mw of offshore wind capacity installed as advertised, it'll be a good thing to have those "non-dispatchable" plants replaced with gas burners that can respond and move.

All is possible, so long as the ratepayers keep paying.


----------



## begreen (Jan 15, 2018)

Meanwhile in Colorado...
https://thinkprogress.org/colorado-wind-batteries-cheap-12e82b91a543/


----------



## georgepds (Jan 15, 2018)

which says

"Solar, wind, and battery prices are dropping so fast that, in Colorado, building new renewable power plus battery storage is now cheaper than running old coal plants. This increasingly renders existing coal plants obsolete.....


What XCel Energy has shown us is that the price for battery storage is dropping so fast, adding it to a solar or wind project increases the total price only modestly. And that’s a game-changer.

Remember, the knock against solar and wind power has been that they are variable, so their power supposedly isn’t as useful as “baseload” (24-7) power like coal and nuclear. Indeed, that was part of the argument that Energy Secretary Rick Perry had made in his now-failed effort to get the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to force U.S. consumers to bail out the coal and nuclear industries."


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 15, 2018)

begreen said:


> Meanwhile in Colorado...
> https://thinkprogress.org/colorado-wind-batteries-cheap-12e82b91a543/



Just another federally funded boondoggle causing everyone's electricity rates to skyrocket.  Nothing to see here.

When will they stop picking winners??


----------



## georgepds (Jan 16, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> Just another federally funded boondoggle causing everyone's electricity rates to skyrocket.  Nothing to see here.
> 
> When will they stop picking winners??




I'll bite... why is this a boondoggle ( open bid , low median price, and not fed funded as near as I can make out) .Or am I just irony impaired ?

That said, batteries with wind is not the most cost effective design. In the case of wind,  it's cheaper to just build more wind mills than to add batteries, and then not use some of the windmills  when the wind is strong


----------



## vinny11950 (Jan 16, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Or am I just irony impaired ?



I think this is what Woodgeek was after.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 16, 2018)

CaptSpiff said:


> Not sure if it was mentioned, but 2 of 3 of the NY nuc plants shown in the twitter post above were on the list under false pretenses. Both Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 quickly submitted "retirement notifications" after it became clear that there was an energy supply squeeze and that the government could be squeezed to offer lucrative permanent subsidies. The Governor blinked and the Nuc plants got generous state subsidies paid for by the ratepayers, all spun as a "jobs" bill.
> 
> The 2000 Mw of power from the Indian Point plants didn't fare so well. It was politically advantageous to pressure their "retirement", so the State fast tracked approval for a pair of 750 Mw combined cycle gas burners and some other project I've forgotten, and suddenly we don't need that nuc power. Plus, if the Gov gets 2-3000Mw of offshore wind capacity installed as advertised, it'll be a good thing to have those "non-dispatchable" plants replaced with gas burners that can respond and move.
> 
> All is possible, so long as the ratepayers keep paying.


Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 submitted early retirement papers because they were not being profitable. At the time that list was valid. They were not the only ones to which that applied in the deregulated NE market. A lot of the mid west plants in Illinois were in the same boat without legislative support. Thats the same reason Entergy closed Vermont Yankee and why Pilgrim is closing. Closure of Indian Point 100% political in nature because of their location. 

What happen in NY was the great govonor of NY realized the threat of NMP1 and Fitz closing was real. Combine their closure with Indian Point 2 & 3 and NYS loses 3534 MWe/hr emission free generation.  

The Gov really does have at least half a brain and fortunately used into support carbon free generation through the Clean Energy Standard. The CES has two approaches, Renewable Energy Standard (RES), and Zero-emissions Credit (ZEC). The ZEC credits ensure the nuclear plants receive a minimum price for their power. At any time If the market price of the power is greater than the ZEC minimum then no credits are paid to the generating facility. The credits are only paid for the power actually generated. 

This was enacted because NY has a goal that 50% of its power is to be generated by renewable sources by 2030 as part of its strategy to reduce statewide greenhouse emissions by 40% by 2030. This is not a permanent subsidy, it's a bridging strategy to help meet the state's ambitious emissions goals. It was never advertised as a job bill. Nuclear power provides 1/3 of the total electricity in NY and makes up 50% of its carbon free generation. If the plants had closed NY would have been set back significantly and cost of power would have increased farther than what the subsidy has.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jan 16, 2018)

Marshy said:


> Fitzpatrick and Nine Mile 1 submitted early retirement papers because they were not being profitable. At the time that list was valid. They were not the only ones to which that applied in the deregulated NE market. A lot of the mid west plants in Illinois were in the same boat without legislative support. That's the same reason Entergy closed Vermont Yankee and why Pilgrim is closing. Closure of Indian Point 100% political in nature because of their location......
> 
> What happen in NY was the great govonor of NY realized the threat of NMP1 and Fitz closing was real. Combine their closure with Indian Point 2 & 3 and NYS loses 3534 MWe/hr emission free generation.



We agree on a lot,... but your fanboy reference to the Governor is a bit much. 

Here's my observations:
In 2015, Entergy see's longterm soft energy prices, mostly due to conservation and cheap renewables, meaning their investment was a dog.
In 2015, they also see that for 10 of the peak usage days, the NYS grid (NYISO) can't live without them and meet their planning reliability numbers.
In 2015, the Governor releases new statements on his determination to permanently close Entergy's Indian Point, effectively showing his hand.
In 2015, Entergy announces their retirement plan effective 2017, effectively laying off 600 highly paid workers in an economically struggling area.
In 2016, much political bru-ha-ha, the legislature passes a "special bill" speedily signed by the Governor to save the upstate Nuc Plants.
It is spun as a "saving the jobs" bill in the upstate region, and as a "cleaner air for all" bill in the down state region, everyone wins.
In 2017, Entergy projects longterm profits and sells Fitzpatrick plant to Excelon for $110 Million, everyone smiles for the photos.

Nov 2015 http://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_n...cle_43e01912-815c-11e5-a699-4bb0353191eb.html

Apr 2017 http://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_n...cle_8486d12a-1622-11e7-ade4-f34f5ae85141.html

The Governor has an environmental and energy vision. I get that and I mostly like it. But he doesn't really care about the cost, because he thinks the ends justify the means. And that I don't like so much.   Let me have it, I got my High Calorie PPE on.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 17, 2018)

begreen said:


> Meanwhile in Colorado...
> https://thinkprogress.org/colorado-wind-batteries-cheap-12e82b91a543/





vinny11950 said:


> I think this is what Woodgeek was after.



Dave Roberts is on it....  fake news?

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


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2018)

CaptSpiff said:


> We agree on a lot,... but your fanboy reference to the Governor is a bit much.
> 
> Here's my observations:
> In 2015, Entergy see's longterm soft energy prices, mostly due to conservation and cheap renewables, meaning their investment was a dog.
> ...


Fanboy reference lol. Thanks for the laugh.  You're from LI, all us upstate folk think all you down state folk are his fan boys. Is that not true, are we living a lie? I thought he was well liked in your area. 

I agree with nearly all you said (see above lol). Yeah there was some rally around saving jobs but from my perspective it was never a really strong driving factor. I live in this area and I never got the sense thst it was a job saving bill. I can see why others would think that though.  Yeah, job saving was mentioned, no argument there but it always seemed like collateral benefit.

Now, if we can get the necessary changes to the transmission infrastructure the subsidy will not be needed. The price of power in this sector is very low and if they could access the sectors that Indian Point have there would be no need to subsidize.





http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jsp


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jan 17, 2018)

Without massive subsidies, how will politicians get elected?  Would someone please think of our poor poor politicians?

Our governor is a criminal...through and through.

From a more common sense perspective...what 30+ year old technology combined with 30+ year old equipment is economically viable today?  Wouldn't new nuclear plants be much more efficient?  Steam turbines have made leaps and bounds in efficiency in the last 30 years.  

Isn't there a reason the EU still does about 30% of its power from nuclear?


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 17, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Isn't there a reason the EU still does about 30% of its power from nuclear?



Sunk cost.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 17, 2018)

sportbikerider78 said:


> W...
> 
> Isn't there a reason the EU still does about 30% of its power from nuclear?




France


----------



## georgepds (Jan 17, 2018)

Re nuclear costs in NY

If I get this right, the 2 plants in the boonies will continue, but the indian point one near NYC will close down

Couldn't this have something to do with killing all those people in NYC should something go wrong. If you loose NYC you loose one of the most productive places in the world

If you blow up the boonies what do you loose, a couple of cows, a few pigs, and the odd rabid squirrel?


Do the math


----------



## georgepds (Jan 17, 2018)

Marshy said:


> Fa....
> http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/maps/index.jsp



The map was very informative, and makes a strong case for new transmission lines I notice hydro quebec has the lowest cost( and enough supply).. Are there any plans to wheel power from HQ down to NYC?


----------



## georgepds (Jan 17, 2018)

Re indian point

At least one pol agrees with me

"For years, my office has been fighting to address the serious risks posed by Indian Point to the surrounding communities and the environment,” New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement emailed to _The Verge._ “If we can shut-down Indian Point under an agreement that enhances public safety and kick-starts investment into safer and more reliable renewable energy sources, that will be a major victory for the millions of New Yorkers who live in the region.”

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/6/1...e-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant-close-2021


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2018)

georgepds said:


> The map was very informative, and makes a strong case for new transmission lines I notice hydro quebec has the lowest cost( and enough supply).. Are there any plans to wheel power from HQ down to NYC?


They already do!
You might be reading the map wrong. That is the price of power in that region. The I infrastructure does not allow NYC to choose the region the power comes from, that's just market price at that time in that specific region. If youre a generatior in the region that is how much revenue they are making on the sale of power at that time, not what they are willing to sell it for.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 17, 2018)

Marshy said:


> They already do!




  Must not be big enough.. they are paying $126 /mwh in NY and only $27/ mwh in Quebec


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Must not be big enough.. they are paying $126 /mwh in NY and only $27/ mwh in Quebec


Bump for a refresh, i added info.


----------



## Marshy (Jan 17, 2018)

Jump to the 13:00 minute mark for an explination of congestion.


----------



## georgepds (Jan 17, 2018)

Marshy said:


> Jump to the 13:00 minute mark for an explination of congestion



Thanks

Congestion just means the wires are at capacity .. Still sounds like they need another HVDC line


----------



## Marshy (Jan 18, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Thanks
> 
> Congestion just means the wires are at capacity .. Still sounds like they need another HVDC line


Well, congestion and lack of infrastructure prevent the flow of power and that is why you see cheap power in the western and northern regions while the price downstate it 3X that.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jan 28, 2018)

Something tells me these guys will be back to this, if not reversing this decision (which is binding), then getting around it somehow. The State of the Union would serve as a powerful drum to talk up coal and nuclear again, putting pressure on Congress to follow thru on campaign promises to bail them out.  If nothing gets done, the administration can then blame congress for not acting.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...os-of-meeting-between-rick-perry-and-big-coal


----------



## vinny11950 (Feb 5, 2018)

Dave Roberts is at it again.  There is a good article in this thread about an energy CEO talking RE on a conference call with investors.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16944178/utility-ceo-renewables-cheaper

Twitter thread


----------



## georgepds (Feb 5, 2018)

vinny11950 said:


> ...
> 
> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16944178/utility-ceo-renewables-cheaper...



It's cheaper to buy an new windmill or solar farm than it is to run an existing coal or nuclear plant.

From the vox article
_First, the headline numbers. Here are the costs Robo anticipates “early in the next decade”:_

_Unsubsidized new wind: 2.0-2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour_
_Unsubsidized new solar: 3.0-4.0 cents per kilowatt-hour_
_Variable operating costs of existing coal or nuclear plants: 3.5-5.0 cents per kilowatt-hour_


----------



## vinny11950 (Feb 8, 2018)

On a movie side note, I just watched the Cloverfield Paradox (really bad) and the main reason for the plot in the movie is that in the near future earth is running out of energy so they have to create some kind of space laser to generate power...  blah blah blah.  In the back of my mind a voice from the Greenroom kept repeating, Why can't they just put up solar panels and be done with it?


----------



## vinny11950 (Jun 1, 2018)

This is only a draft memo that has been leaked, but if true and implemented, is pretty, shall we say, anti-free market.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ne-to-money-losing-coal-power-plants-jhv94ghl

The move would force grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear power plants.  The added cost would be passed on to the consumer, I guess.


----------



## begreen (Jun 1, 2018)

Invoking national security as justification is BS. Same excuse is being abused for tariffs.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 1, 2018)

begreen said:


> Invoking national security as justification is BS.


How so?


----------



## begreen (Jun 1, 2018)

Ashful said:


> How so?


For several reasons. The implication that gas and renewables are less secure is baloney. Actually with a smart grid system a diverse and diffused power structure can be more secure. If security is the main concern then why are we not diversifying and building modern grid infrastructure instead of propping up legacy plants that are money losers? The tariffs may actual be a threat to national security as they heighten tensions between other nations and America. Economic security is not the same as national security. Now the cat is out of the bag and the US has set precedent for other nations to make the same claim of national security when there is not that threat.


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 1, 2018)

Nuke is debatable but no way on coal. With the exception of New England, natural gas storage and availability is pretty well not constrained so the best backup power is currently natural gas peakers along with combined cycle natural gas plants. Both peakers and combined cycles can also run off light fuel oil far cleaner than a coal plant and supply is limited to how many tanks you want to have on site. The only way coal makes sense is to spend several billion dollars a plant to build IGCC plants fueled by coal. For those billions its far better to deploy far cheaper gas plants for higher reliability as they can be distributed around. IGCC plants are also base load plants that don't start up and shut down quickly.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jun 5, 2018)

Meanwhile, technology keeps moving forward.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...-natural-gas-carbon-air-pollution-allam-cycle


----------



## georgepds (Jun 5, 2018)

Re natural gas storage in new england

Granted there is not much, but there is always the tank with sister Kent's rainbow swash

https://www.theboxerboston.com/blog/legend-rainbow-swash/

can you find ho ho ho chi min in the swash?


----------



## georgepds (Jun 5, 2018)

vinny11950 said:


> Meanwhile, technology keeps moving forward.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...-natural-gas-carbon-air-pollution-allam-cycle




Doesn't this plant  work, in part, because there are nearby, oil fields that use the co2 ?


*
abstract*
The Allam Cycle is a new, high-pressure, oxy-fuel, supercritical CO2 cycle that generates low-cost electricity from fossil fuels while producing near-zero air emissions; all CO2 generated by the system is produced as a high-pressure, pipeline-ready by-product for use in enhanced oil recovery, industrial processes, or sequestration.


----------



## peakbagger (Jun 5, 2018)

Carbon sequestration technology is pretty well developed for gas cycles, what the sticking point to date has been where to sequester it. Fossil well reinjection is definitely a proven way to go, the problem is technically the infrastructure needs to be in place and its expensive. Iceland also has had some promising success with sequestering CO2 in boreholes but it requires living on top of a unique unstable geology to be able to do it. There already is a major issue that many recent oil wells flare natural gas (methane with many times the GWP as CO2) as the local infrastructure isn't in place to capture it and recover it. There were new standards put in place to require more capture but believe the current administration got rid of them or delayed them.

The current reality is that many of the technical solutions for global warming have been in place for awhile, its the political and economic drivers that are lacking. Doesn't help when many conservatives believe in the end times and that any day or year now they will get pulled up into heaven and will let the unbelievers sort out the chaos they left.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jun 5, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Doesn't this plant  work, in part, because there are nearby, oil fields that use the co2 ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like the article says, hundreds of new gas fired powered plants are going to be built to meet demand, and this may be an option to mitigate CO2 in the future.  At least it looks like the damn things works.  And there seems to be an alliance forming between the gas and renewable industries against coal and nuclear.


----------



## georgepds (Jun 5, 2018)

re "Doesn't help when many conservatives believe in the end times and that any day or year now they will get pulled up into heaven and will let the unbelievers sort out the chaos they left."

Slightly off topic, but this belief must wreck havoc with retirement planning.


----------



## Ashful (Jun 6, 2018)

georgepds said:


> Slightly off topic, but this belief must wreck havoc with retirement planning.


Financial demographics would seem to indicate otherwise.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 9, 2018)

Anybody else notice Powelson announced he is stepping down?

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060087469


----------

