They Must Be Reading The Blog -- December 30, 2017 -- Global Warming Hits The Bakken -- Record Cold Weather Reported Across North Dakota

I really have to thank the reader who brought this to my attention. About two weeks ago a reader noted that nuclear energy, coal, and natural gas had maxed out in New England and the region was responding by increasing the amount of oil being used to generate electricity. It was then noted that renewable energy (mostly wind) was not up to the task. As energy demand increased during the day, renewable energy actually decreased -- it appears that wind turbines were either less efficient or coming off-line during the day when electricity was most needed.

Now, Don alerts me to this Washington Examiner story, "coal to the rescue as record cold grips the East."

Coal-fired power plants are king again as sub-zero temperatures sent demand for heating and electricity soaring on the East Coast Friday in the largest energy market in the nation.
Coal outpaced both natural gas and nuclear power plants in the PJM market, which extends from the Midwest to Washington, according to real-time updates provided by the grid operator PJM Interconnection.

Coal provided nearly 20,000 megawatts more electricity throughout the day Friday than its primary rival natural gas and over 10,000 megawatts more than nuclear power plants.

One megawatt of electricity can provide 750-1,200 homes with power, depending on how much demand there is on the system, according to experts.

The PJM breakdown looked like this: Coal at 45,842 MW; nuclear power at 35,514; and natural gas at 25,927. Renewables provided 3,086 MW. Coal, nuclear and natural gas are the three dominant sources of 24-hour power on the grid.

And renewable energy? In MW:

• coal: 45,842 (42%)
• nuclear: 35,514
• natural gas: 25,927
• renewables: 3,086 (2.8%)
• total: 110,369

It would be interesting to get the nameplate capacity / percentages for the energy mix. Something tells me the renewable folks would tell us that nameplate capacity for renewable energy was close to 25%. There's a huge difference between nameplate capacity and what renewables actually produce.

This is very, very early in the season. Cold weather like this generally does not appear until mid- to late-January and February. A lot of folks in the northeast are going to be spending their Trump tax savings on expensive spot electricity made more expensive by renewable energy initiatives.

By the way, this is interesting: were it not for coal, some localities may have been in deep trouble. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has a good case for allowing coal utilities to claim a premium for maintaining "emergency" supplies of coal (previously reported).

Meanwhile, in North Dakota, record cold weather is being reported:

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

This Should Give You A Charge

If you want to read some great comments to a very "strange" article, read this short article, and then read the comments.

Speaking Of Jobs -- For The Archives -- Nuclear Power In Illinois

In an article about Illinois deciding at the last minute to "keep" two nuclear power plants, these two items caught me eye:

• The bi-partisan bill allows Exelon’s Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear power plants to remain open, saving 4,200 jobs and over 22 billion kWhs of carbon-free power each year, more than all of the state’s renewables combined.
• These two plants were in jeopardy of closing because even at a low cost of five cents or so per kWh, they were losing a combined $100 million per year because they could not compete with cheap natural gas and wind energy that is subsidized at 2.3¢/kWh. Illinois taxpayers subsidize solar energy at 21¢/kWh. This bill provides these nuclear plants with just 1¢/kWh, and only until market conditions change.

It's amazing that this was even as issue.

Nuclear energy at 5 cents/kWh cannot compete with "cheap" natural gas. Apparently, Illinois subsidies for nuclear energy will be1 cent/kWh "but only until market conditions change."

Wind energy in Illinois is subsidized at 2.3 cents/kWh.

Solar energy in Illinois is subsidized at a whopping 21 cents/kWh.

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

The Apple Page

I am probably the last one to know this. Google Chrome is considered a "battery hog." If your PC battery is not lasting as long as you would expect, and you are using Google Chrome, now you know. Google "google chrome battery drain." Too many hits to list. 

Of the articles that I read that addressed that issue none explained why. Probably because it's very obvious what is going on. The analogy: compare how long your smart phone battery lasts when you ride the subway all day, compared to when it is sitting on your desk and not being used.

War On Nukes; Update On Exelon In Illinois -- July 4, 2016

See the post on June 22, 2014, for some of the background to this story and a list of earlier links leading up to this. This is how that post started:

A reader has sent a very, very good article on future of US utilities and the national power grid, using Exelon as a contemporary case study.

It's an article that should be read by anyone interested in the Bakken, and now, perhaps, the "Sleeping Giant." If one does not have the time to read it today, bookmark it for future reference.

It's been my experience that many of these stories are eventually archived for subscribers only or removed completely from the net at some point in the future.

Today, an update on the Exelon experience in Illinois.

To save two nuclear plants in Illinois that provide about 12% of the state's electricity needs, the company requested  25 cents -- a quarter -- to be added to everyone's utility bill every month. Twenty-five cents.

The "people" said no. So Exelon says it will shutter their nuclear plants.

Here's the story from Motley Fool's perspective. It begins:

The state of Illinois accounts for just 4% of the country's population but 12% of its nuclear power generation. Eleven nuclear reactors generated 48% of the state's electricity, created thousands of jobs, and provided hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue in 2015. So, naturally, the state decided it would be a good idea to let Exelon close its nuclear power plants at Quad Cities and Clinton in the coming years.

How did we get here?

Exelon had been working with environmental groups and state regulators to pass a rather reasonable proposal that would have provided modest subsidies -- $0.25 per monthly electric bill -- to keep nuclear reactors operating. When politicians dragged their feet on the legislation, the company reminded all stakeholders that it would be forced to close several reactors. Politicians called Exelon's bluff, the company announced formal plans to close two of its facilities, and now the state is poised to lose 12% of its electricity generation by 2018.

Ironically, Illinois is hoping to replace the lost carbon-free power generation with natural gas -- working against its Renewable Portfolio Standard -- and subsidized renewable energy. If that doesn't make sense, it shouldn't.

Taking Quad Cities and Clinton offline will remove more carbon-free energy from the grid than the total renewable energy generation from Illinois, Colorado, and Washington combined -- all because Illinois didn't think it was a good idea to approve a fee of $0.25 per monthly electric bill to keep its nuclear power plants operational. 

While you could counter that nuclear isn't competitive with cheap renewables anymore, that neglects to consider the fact that wind energy is highly subsidized. In 2015, over 96% of wind power generated in the electric transmission system that Illinois participates in was sold at a cost of zero or less.

There is much more at the link. The whole story is insane.

My hunch is that someone will find a way to keep the nuclear reactors running.

A couple of data points:

• these two nuclear reactors provide 12% of all electricity generated in Illinois
• all of the wind/solar energy in Illinois provides that state 5.6% of its electricity (and it's completely unreliable and non-dispatchable)
• these nuclear power plants avoid enough carbon dioxide emissions to take the equivalent of 15 million cars off Illinois roads (for the record: Illinois has only 7 million registered passenger vehicles

By the way, this "percent electricity provided" is becoming more and more irrelevant in these discussions. Talking about wind/solar energy is a lot like taking about the stock market: past performance is no indication of future performance.

Analysts can pretty much forecast down to the hundredth percent how much electricity will be provided by a given nuclear power plant running 24/7 next year on any given grid.

There is no way possible to predict how much energy wind/solar will provide next year on any given grid. So, when someone says wind/solar provided 6% of the state's electricity, it doesn't mean it will do the same next year. Worse, unreliable energy is unreliable because it cannot be predicted, and it is not dispatchable.

I don't know if Motley Fool mentions it in their article, but the unreliable energy sources have to be backed up with conventional energy. At one time, I would have argued that nuclear energy could be that back-up but it turns out nuclear energy is too expensive and too slow to bring back on line if wind/sun go off-line.

Anyway, preaching to the choir. For the archives only, to follow this debacle.

By the way, Motley Fool is focused on investing. It seems like when it comes to investing in energy, it's an open-book test.