Random Update Of Russia's Northern Fleet In The Mediterranean; Reason #35 Why I Love To Blog -- October 27, 2016

Updates

Later, 1:53 p.m. Central Time: from a reader's comment --

If you zoom in and select "track" the Russian tug Nikolay Chiker is paired up with a Russian ship (unclassified, but has the appearance of a cargo ship or possible odd tanker) by the name of Osipov.

I have been watching them since last night when the Nikolay Chiker was steaming toward the Osipov which was in a static position. I initially thought that the Tug was steaming toward a north African port. The track today is in the same general area and appears to be drifting or static refueling or replenishment unlike American warships.

Early this morning the track almost appeared to be a working tug track like pushing other ships next to the Osipov.

Last night there were also two Spanish warships ahead of the Nikolay while it was steaming toward the Osipov. 

Original Post

Received signal one minute ago (approximately 11:05 a.m. Central Time), the tug escorting Russia's only aircraft carrier was headed south toward landfall, just miles off the coast of northern Morocco, just north of the port city of Al Hoceima, Morocco.

Al Hoceima has the second-largest port in the northern region of Morocco. Current, local time, in Al Hoceima, is 5:10 p.m., just about supper-time, I suppose.

***************************

Reason #35 Why I Love To Blog

Updates

Later, 12:41 p.m. Central Time: you know, lost in all this clutter is the comment made by the reader -- "that area should have cheap electricity for decades to come." This area is often referred to as the "Rust Belt" or very near that area formerly known as the "Rust Belt." If folks don't screw this up, this could be the re-emergence of US industry in that area -- aluminum, steel, cars, trucks, rail cars, and yes, dare I say it, wind turbines and towers. Folks paying attention know that coal is expensive in Asia (particularly India) and it's unlikely energy is going to get much cheaper overseas, certainly when compared to the US.

Later, 12:12 p.m. Central Time: see first comment:

To put some of these numbers (MW) in perspective, standard Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plants generate from 600 to 1,100 MW as a rule.

They are designed to go from cold start to 100% nameplate in about ten minutes time.

(The New England grid operator, ISO, has some great info on their website - ISO Express. One of the sections is the Daily Generation by Fuel Use.

Natgas ramps up and down throughout the day to keep the lights on for the folks in the Northeast.

In Pennsylvania, there are plans, or actual development of, 18 CCGT plants with a total generating capacity of more than 10,000 MW.

That area should have cheap electricity for decades to come.

And a quick follow-up from the same reader:

The company In energy is building a 1,480 MW plant now outside of Scranton. 

Cost, $500 million. 

A second, smaller plant, 500 MW, may be built nearby. 

Comment:

$500 million / 1,480 / MW (with 100% nameplate capacity - generation =$350,000 /MW.

Wind farms/solar farms will cost in excess of $1 million/MW nameplate capacity, which means that 480 MW wind/solar plans (in the original post) will also be about $500 million. For this renewable energy (not counting the cost of back-up natural gas energy), $500 million / 70 MW generated capacity = an astonishing $7 million / MW.

Original Post

 

Because of the blog, I've learned to pay a lot more attention to exactly what word journalists use in reporting stories.

I have to thank one of my readers for "beating my head over this" on many, many occasions.

Here's an example.

From PennEnergy today: three New England states choose six clean energy generators, an AP story.  The lede:

Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts have selected six proposals to develop more clean energy for the New England market. The projects announced Tuesday include mostly wind and solar projects, which are expected to generate 460 megawatts of electricity collectively.

My hunch is that the "460 megawatts" is the nameplate capacity. We know that wind farms generate no more than 20% of their nameplate capacity (solar energy, a "meager" 10%).

It's hard to say from the article whether the reporter means that the nameplate capacity of these new "generators" is 480 megawatts, or if the reporter is suggesting that the nameplate capacity will be 2,400 MW. After all, the reported said these generators would "generate 480 MW collectively." At 20% that means the nameplate capacity would have to be 2,400 MW, and perhaps more because the article says the generator would be a mix of wind (20%) and solar (10%).

[If using both wind and solar, generation will be closer to 15% of capacity or 3,200 MW capacity.]

To put that into perspective, the Hoover Dam held the world record for power production between 1939 and 1949 with capacity of 705 MW of hydroelectricity. Grand Coulee Dam held a similar world record from 1949 to 1960 with a 2,280 MW capacity. So, if New England really has a plan for 2,400 MW of capacity (480 MW generated), I'm impressed. 

My hunch is that the reporter is talking about nameplate capacity, and is not telling us that equates to about 70 MW generation.

Note: this is not a discussion between the merits of wind/solar energy vs other forms of energy. It is a discussion of what consumers will actually be paying for when they sign on for these projects. They are not going to get 480 MW of electricity generation (if that's what the reporter meant).

Rate-payers need to start asking not what the cost / MW nameplate, but the cost / MW generated. 

Note: I often make simple arithmetic errors, and am prone to misreading or misinterpreting something. If this is important to you, go to the source. If this is not important to you, I assume you have not read the post anyway.

****************************

A Note to the Granddaughters

Years ago, your mom and your aunt lived overseas when "we were in" the USAF. We visited all the major cities in Europe. One of our favorite cities, of course, was Vienna. We spent a full week in Vienna around Christmas during our first year in Europe: your mom, Kiri, would have been about five years old; your Aunt Laura would have been about eleven months old.

Today while reading Edmund de Waal's The Hare With Amber Eyes, I came across this passage describing the Palais Ephrussi (the palatial home of the author's family several generations earlier) and the Ringstrasse in Vienna:

It is all so self-consciously grand, and yet a bit Cecil B. de Mille. I am the wrong audience for it. A young painter and architecture student, Adolf Hitler, had a proper visceral response to the Ringstrasse:

From morning until late at night I ran from one object of interest to another, but it was always the buildings that held my primary interest. For hours I could stand in front of the Opera, for hours I could gaze at the Parliament; the whole Ringstrasse seemed to me like an enchantment out of The Thousand and One Nights."

Hitler would paint all the great buildings on the Ring, the Burgtheater, Hansen's Parliament, the two great buildings opposite the Palais Ephrussi, the university and the Votivkirche. Hitler appreciated how the space could be used for dramatic display. He understood all this ornament in a different way: it expressed "eternal values."

We would have walked right past the Palais Ephrussi (multiple times). Kiri would have been about seven years old, walking with us, while Laura would have been about three years old, able to walk, but mostly being pushed in a stroller.

Great, great memories.