A three-fer. This doesn't happen often:
- a story about the Bakken
- a photograph taken outside of Williston in The Washington Post
- a story that supports the thesis that wind/solar will drive natural gas demand
First things first.
At the link,
note the photograph. The story was published in
The Washington Post. Apparently the only file photos of the Bakken that
The Post has were taken in the winter. LOL.
But more importantly,
I'm curious if any Williston reader can identify the general location where the photo was taken. There are buttes in the Williston area, and, if indeed this photograph was taken near Boomtown, USA, this appears southwest of Williston, on the way to Fairview. There is a CBR terminal out in that area.
But now, the real reason for posting this story -- sent to me by a reader, thank you very much.
This story is all about the need for dispatchable energy in light of government-mandated solar and wind energy.
We’re at a time of deeply ambitious plans for clean energy growth. Two of the U.S.’s largest states by population, California and New York, have both mandated that power companies get fully 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2030.
Only,
there’s a problem: Because of the particular nature of clean energy
sources like solar and wind, you can’t simply add them to the grid in
large volumes and think that’s the end of the story. Rather, because
these sources of electricity generation are “intermittent” — solar
fluctuates with weather and the daily cycle, wind fluctuates with the
wind — there has to be some means of continuing to provide electricity
even when they go dark. And the more renewables you have, the bigger
this problem can be.
"The particular nature of ..." LOL. Yes, the "particular nature of wind and solar" --- well, we will get to that in a moment. In fact, now.
Note: the mainstream media now refers to wind and solar energy as "intermittent" energy -- something we've been doing for quite some time.
Undependable would be another word for wind and solar energy. As well as expensive, unnecessary, fryers, slicers and dicers.
The writers consider all this "ironic":
Now, a new study suggests
that at least so far, solving that problem has ironically involved more
fossil fuels — and more particularly, installing a large number of
fast-ramping natural gas plants, which can fill in quickly whenever
renewable generation slips.
The writers also consider this "surprising":
In the study, the researchers took a broad look at the erection of wind,
solar, and other renewable energy plants (not including large
hydropower or biomass projects) across 26 countries that are members of
an international council known as the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development over the period between the year 1990 and
2013. And they found a surprisingly tight relationship between
renewables on the one hand, and gas on the other.
And as wind and solar increases, fossil fuel demand increases slightly faster (and remember, there was already a lot of fossil fuel in place; it was wind and solar that was "new"):
“All other things equal, a 1% percent increase in the share of fast
reacting fossil technologies is associated with a 0.88% percent increase
in renewable generation capacity in the long term,” the study reports.
Again, this is over 26 separate countries, and more than two decades.
So, if wind and solar increase by less than 1%, the fossil fuel required to back it up appears to increase by 1%.
And for investors, it's an open book test:
The type of “fast-reacting fossil technologies” being referred to here
is natural gas plants that fire up quickly. For example, General
Electric and EDF Energy currently feature
a natural gas plant in France that “is capable of reaching full power
in less than 30 minutes.” Full power, in this case, means rapidly adding
over 600 megawatts, or million watts, of electricity to the grid.
I guess it's a two-fer for General Electric: building wind farms
and natural gas plants to back them up. An open-book test for investors.
I know it doesn't work quite this way, but the "low-information crowd"
won't catch on for awhile, but the "rule of thumb": when I see another
500-megawatt wind farm going up somewhere, I know that another
568-megawattt natural gas plant is going up somewhere.
Note: this is not an investment site. Do not make any investment, financial, travel, job, or relationship decisions based on what you read here. For the record, some time in the last six months I started buying shares in GE and will accumulate shares in GE on a regular basis, and will leave those shares to our two daughters and their children.
*************************
And, For The Record ... Bernie Sanders Buys His Third Home
A "Modest" Lakefront Summer Home
Even
Vanity Fair saw the hypocrisy in this story.
Bernie Sanders now has one thing in common with the millionaires and billionaires and other 1 percenters he so frequently attacked on the campaign trail: he now owns his very own summer home.
Vermont magazine Seven Days reported Tuesday that the 74-year-old senator and his wife, Jane Sanders, have purchased a four-bedroom house on the shore of Lake Champlain for roughly $600,000. Jane told Seven Days that they had recently sold a house in Maine that had belonged to her family since the 1900s, and used the proceeds to purchase the new property, which is located in North Hero (population 803, as of the 2010 census). With this purchase, Sanders now owns at least three houses, the others being in Burlington, VT, and Capitol Hill in D.C.
Sanders, an outspoken advocate for the working class who spent his 2016 presidential primary campaign railing against income inequality, remains one of the poorer members of Congress, and his net worth is among the lowest in the Senate.
The writer of the article appears to be a lowly-paid journalist who voted for Bernie and now feels duped.
So many story lines:
- modest...lakefront ---- my wife, a Hillary supporter -- says there is no such thing as a "modest lakefront summer home"
- "at least three homes" -- because the young journalist didn't want to do all the work it might have taken -- if it was even possible -- to determine how many houses
Dick Bernie and Jane own
- Bernie's net worth among the lowest in the Senate; imagine how the other senators are doing
- Jane says she sold a house that had been in the family since the 1900s -- oh, give me a break -- in the 1900s, up in Vermont? It was a lean-to...
- carbon footprint -- just getting there in the SUV every weekend; and then the utilities....
- you can go to Zillow and see that most houses in the area are between $195K and $520K (making the $600K "modest" lakefront home somewhat pricier than the average); although there are homes from $1.5 million to $3.0 million on some lake front areas
- among the one-percenters; laughing all the way to the bank
- Vanity Fair: famous for its photo-journalism was unable to obtain a photograph of this "modest" lakefront summer home
- no doubt, there is a wall around this home, also
