Gifford Briggs’ Post

Several people commenting on my guest column in the WSJ questioned the assertion that California gets 80 percent of its energy from fossil fuel. Most of them, I think, are conflating total electricity use with total energy use. But any measurement of California's total raw energy inputs has to include not only renewables used to generate electricity, but all fuels including, for example, crude oil used to refine into gasoline and diesel fuel, and natural gas used to heat homes. The source is the US Energy Information Agency. For CA energy use the US EIA has a chart updated through 2022 "California Energy Consumption Estimates," reported in Trillion BTU. If you scroll over the bars on the chart a popup appears for each bar noting the estimated TBTUs for each fuel: https://lnkd.in/gj7e2Age According to the US EIA, 5,429 TBTUs of California's raw fuel inputs are fossil fuel. That would be 2,131 TBTUs of natural gas, 3,268 of oil, and 30 of coal. If we use total in-state raw energy inputs of 6,494 TBTUs as the denominator, fossil fuel represents 83.6 percent of the total. This figure is the one that ought to represent California's reliance on fossil fuel. If we add all imported electricity to the denominator, the percentage drops to 76.4 for fossil fuel, but that percentage doesn't take into account the amount of fossil fuel inputs that are used to generate the imported electricity. If you do take that into account, the percentage probably rises back over 80 percent. If only 40 percent of the 601 TBTUs of imported electricity is generated by coal or natural gas, California's overall dependence on fossil fuel rises back up to 80 percent. These facts check out, despite the fact that they may surprise a lot of people.

“…lulls in renewable energy generation” Wait…what ? “Lulls” What lulls ? No one ever said anything about lulls in renewable supply. https://lnkd.in/gkRWsW6C. We were explicitly promised that it would be full bore power all the time. https://lnkd.in/gr2-ETws As much as we want, whenever we want. Base load quality supply. Vast fields of solar panels, from horizon to horizon and forests of wind turbines pushing electrons down the wire by day and massive batteries the size of the MCG doing the job at night. There was most definately no mention of lulls.

This is a very important process and learning in the conversion process from coal to bridge fuels including natural gas, wind, and solar. Likely in that order. It also converts the labor on site so jobs are not lost. https://lnkd.in/gvCXH7U2

Gas and coal plants produce their boilerplate amount 85-95% of the time. Solar puts out around 19% of the time, onshore wind about 23% of time and offshore about 29%. On top of it there is the added expense for solar and wind of 100% backup plus added infrastructure to deal with inertia issues, etc. clearly these electricity generators are far from “free” and are in fact significantly more expensive in the long run — which is why electricity rates ALWAYS rise when they are added to the grid. ALWAYS! (This artle speaks of but one Wednesday night’ of which there are many, many each year, often at times when electricity is most needed!)

Wind energy is powering America more than coal for the first time ever ◼ Data from the Energy Information Administration suggests that wind power is a bigger source of electricity than coal for the first time ever. Data from the agency says that wind was responsible for 47.7 million megawatthours of energy in April, vs. coal’s 37.2 million megawatthours. ◼ “Generation from coal-fired power plants has the sharpest decline in the forecast as a result of growing renewable energy sources, low natural gas prices, and continuing retirements of coal-fired power plants,” the agency wrote in an energy sector outlook this December. “We forecast that coal-fired power plants will generate less in 2024 (599 billion kwh) than the combined generation from solar and wind (688 billion kWh) for the first time on record.” ◼ Still, a Supreme Court decision decided in favor of those seeking to weaken climate change goals. That, plus increasing energy demand from artificial intelligence systems, could prompt a coal resurgence. The Washington Post reported that AI power needs are delaying the retirement of many coal-fired power plants. This remains a fragile transition, but one that would be tremendously important for the planet should it take hold.  The source: Quartz   #energyticslimited #energyefficiency #renewableenergy #windenergy

PIPELINE PROBLEMS Energy Transfer Files for Regulator Review in Pipeline Spat - Read More: https://hubs.la/Q02sfjK90 Energy Transfer LP is asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take a closer look at a Williams Cos Inc. pipeline project as a legal battle rages between the two companies. #usa #pipelines #energy Energy Transfer #oilgas #pipeline

**Reviving Stranded Gas-Based Power Plants: Key Points** The government is examining ways to revive 31 stranded gas-based power plants to meet rising power demand. A pilot project has already begun with NTPC's 2,500MW gas power plant, aiming to boost power supply during peak demand periods. Power demand peaks in summer and post-monsoon (September to October) when coal use drops due to wet conditions. Reviving gas-based capacity could help prevent power crises during these periods. However, 14.3GW across 31 plants is stranded due to the lack of domestic gas and high import costs. The government aims to increase natural gas's share in the energy mix to 15% by 2030 from the current 6.7%, though past efforts have failed due to insufficient local gas supply. With a 450GW renewable energy target by 2030, gas plants can balance the grid due to their fast ramp-up rates. They also emit less CO2 and use fewer resources. However, domestic gas supply issues have historically hindered progress. In Since 2013, priority for domestic gas shifted from power to city distribution, forcing reliance on expensive LNG. The average gas supplied in FY22 was 17 mmscmd against a requirement of 102 mmscmd for 85% PLF, resulting in gas plants operating at just 16.54% PLF in FY22. **What Do You Think?** Can reviving these plants succeed this time? With the renewed focus and critical role of gas-based plants, could we see a different outcome? Share your thoughts on how this effort will impact our energy landscape. Let's discuss! #gasbasedeconomy #powerplant

WHAT TODD WANTS FOR A NEW GAS PEAKER I also received a solicited statement from Babu Bahirathan, the Todd Corporation chief executive officer of downstream energy and Nova Energy, in respect of the importance of gas peaker power stations, which Todd has specialised in building. These plants are rapid start high-revving turbines which can brought online within 10 minutes to pump electrons into the national grid to prevent blackouts when the country’s baseload generators can’t deliver enough; they only run for about 30 minute bursts, selling power to the grid for a very high price. The grid operator Transpower says further gas peakers are urgently needed. Todd has two peakers at New Plymouth (Junction Rd and inland Urenui. It also in 2017 gained a 10 year consent to build a 360Mw peaker (six x 60Mw turbines) at Otorohanga (Kawhia Rd) at an estimated cost of $350 million. This was put on hold after Labour’s Jacinda Ardern and Megan Woods began funding investigations into the Lake Onslow pumped hydro dry year security storage option to give NZ 100% renewable energy, because it would make peakers uneconomic. That has since been axed by the current government. Here’s Babu’s statement to me: “Nova Energy has resource consents that allow it to build up to 360 MW of fast start, gas fired generation (Peakers).  “Todd is aware that the energy sector supports the development of new Peakers to replace ageing and retiring units and Todd concurs with Transpower, Boston Consulting Group and other stakeholders who have concluded that additional Peakers will be required in the future to maintain secure and reliable electricity supply in New Zealand. “However, a minimum of at least 10 years contracted flexible gas supply is required to build a business case for investment. Given there is still no certainty around future contracts or the future supply of gas to supply additional Peakers, there is no business case. Government underwrite or other intervention will inevitably be needed to enable this much-needed investment to occur within the timeframe required.” The Otorohanga consent currently expires in 2027. I’ve been reliably informed that it would require government legislation to guarantee such a gas supply contract.

In 2018 it was common to see arguments like this one as part of the whole bridge fuel argument. The argument was that natural gas would be needed and would help the transition to renewable power. "The flexibility of natural gas as an electricity-generating energy source -- plus long-term low prices -- will bring speed to the transition to renewable power." https://lnkd.in/epuYSBBv Storage has put that argument to rest. Natural gas is at historic low prices in the U.S. And yet, new investment is not going to new nat gas power generation.

Natural gas is poised for the most significant demand growth among fossil fuels over the next 30 years. Its combustion emits fewer greenhouse gases compared to oil and coal, and it plays a crucial role in maintaining energy system flexibility and grid stability. Despite the rise of renewable energy, natural gas remains indispensable. Until power grid interconnections are fully developed and battery storage for excess solar and wind energy becomes efficient and economical, natural gas will be essential for managing supply and demand imbalances during periods of low renewable energy contribution. https://lnkd.in/dgratUYc