The Texas Town That Just Quit Fossil Fuels

Here is an interesting article about a town in Texas that runs it's own utility by making long-term contracts (20 years or so) for purchasing electrical power at set rates. Most recently they've signed contracts for renewable wind and solar power and will soon be getting all their electrical power from sources other than coal or other fossil fuels.

Their reasons for making the switch were not environmental or altruistic in any way. They did it because it was the best deal they could get, and they will be saving significant money over the next several decades. In addition, these renewable energy sources save a ton of water over traditional power plants, and water is becoming more and more scarce in Texas and throughout the Southwest, so that was another factor in the decision.

I though it was interesting that the need to save on expensive and scarce water, plus the fact that the cost of renewables keeps dropping as more of it is installed, means that this town will see such savings by switching.

https://www.slate.com/articles/busi...hy_the_town_is_dropping_fossil_fuels_for.html

They make these low ball deals to get customers; as proof for Government subsidized grants, loans, free money.


JD

I don't read anything appearing in/on Slate because there isn't enough duct tape in the world to keep my head from exploding at the cultish Liberal "science" they want everyone to accept without question.

Warmists should be punished.

That being said, I'm going to light up my barbecue and cook some cow while dreaming about a clustered L1000W rocket.

JDcluster said:

They make these low ball deals to get customers; as proof for Government subsidized grants, loans, free money.
At least one Solar company went belly up after walking away with 4.5 Billion from Obama.

JD

Click to expand...

Nobody got $4.5 billion and went belly up. If you are going to try to make a point by quoting numbers, then at least know what those numbers are. Try to be accurate within a factor of ten.

The Georgetown contracts are with EDF and with SunEdison. Do you know for a fact their 20-year contracts are based on a subsidy or are at a loss, or is that something you "feel" might be true based on your pre-conceived ideas?

o1d_dude said:

I don't read anything appearing in/on Slate because there isn't enough duct tape in the world to keep my head from exploding at the cultish Liberal "science" they want everyone to accept without question.

Warmists should be punished.

That being said, I'm going to light up my barbecue and cook some cow while dreaming about a clustered L1000W rocket.

Click to expand...

It's a business article about a town saving money, not a science article or a global warming article. The entire point is that the decision was based on economics, not environmental issues.

I guess it won't take much wind turbines to run a small town in Texas but I bet you'd need a wind farm at least 3x the size of Texas to run a city like Houston.

Plus those wind and solar stuff is expensive, very expensive. Wind turbines require special trucks and skills to install, and solar panels create lots of pollution to make, in addition to the amount of fossil fuels needed to make them as well. They are also not maintenance free because solar panels must be regularly washed or else they lose power capacity.

Space crafts going to deep space uses nuclear power because it is the only dependable source of energy that can last decades or more.

taiwanluthiers said:

I guess it won't take much wind turbines to run a small town in Texas but I bet you'd need a wind farm at least 3x the size of Texas to run a city like Houston.

Plus those wind and solar stuff is expensive, very expensive. Wind turbines require special trucks and skills to install, and solar panels create lots of pollution to make, in addition to the amount of fossil fuels needed to make them as well. They are also not maintenance free because solar panels must be regularly washed or else they lose power capacity.

Space crafts going to deep space uses nuclear power because it is the only dependable source of energy that can last decades or more.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it would take a HUGE wind farm and/or solar farm to run Houston, not 3x the size of Texas, but big. Houston has 40x the population of Georgetown, so it probably consumes close to 40x the electricity. Fortunately, Texas has a lot of wind and a lot of sun. Texas has more installed wind capacity than any other state.

Regarding the expense, all power plants are expensive. With a solar or wind plant there is no cost for fuel. You pay for the plant and the maintenance, but no fuel. All power plants require maintenance. All power plants require special trucks and special skills to install. If you are going to make a comparison, then you need to actually COMPARE something, not just cite the costs of one alternative. What is the cost of the energy produced by renewables versus fossil fuels? The point of the article is that the costs are getting closer and closer, and for this town in Texas, the cost of renewables is lower for 20-year contracts.

You mention water required to wash solar panels. If you read the article, it actually tells you the amount of water required to produce a unit of energy for a solar plant, wind plant and traditional fossil fuel plant. The wind plant requires almost no water, and the solar plant requires a fraction of the water used by a fossil fuel plant. The article makes the point that water use was a big concern for this town because of water scarcity. Read the article.

Nuclear power is not used on spacecraft because of reliability concerns. It's only used when the spacecraft is going too far from the sun to use solar. Otherwise spacecraft ALWAYS use solar. It is reliable for decades.

Good on them. I hope they have considered the step increase in their bill when those contracts expire....

I hope to put a few panels on my house, one or 2 at a time. It will shade a portion of my roof (reducing AC costs) and help bring my grid use down as well. Eventually I plan to run dedicated circuits for the fridge and ceiling fans off of the panels.

o1d_dude said:

...there isn't enough duct tape in the world to keep my head from exploding...Warmists should be punished...

Click to expand...

He He...:grin:

Watch the political comments.

cwbullet said:

Watch the political comments.

Click to expand...

Everything is political now...

Just like everything is racist...

It is the world in which we live...

No I deleted the political comment. We do not need anti-x overtones. People should be able to come here and have fun without being pulled into a political argument.

I often agree with the comments, but I keep them to myself. Stay within the rules.

I do not believe that man is causing global warming as much as some think, not to mention that some "experts" (Expert: a drip under pressure:grin argue that the warming is cyclical. I LOVE the out doors and wildlife, and I hope one day clean energy becomes efficient and inexpensive. But as I told some youngens, IF they found some way to have efficient solar panes that anyone/everyone can afford, don't think that you will get free energy (after the cost of the solar panel). The government :dark: will not let these energy companies fail AND they will want to $$$$$ also . Just my :2:

The news item about Georgetown is interesting only because of the 100% figure. Other cities in Texas, such as Austin and San Antonio have already contracted for some of their power to come from wind and solar. I don't think there's enough solar and wind capacity to fully supply the larger cities yet. As time goes on there will be more usage of renewable energy sources. However, coal and natural gas plants will still be needed when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Given that the wind and solar farms are located in west Texas, which is hundreds of miles away, it seems that most of Georgetown's power will actually originate from the local coal and gas plants. It's just that they are paying for the energy that the wind and solar farms will be pumping into the grid.

I just think they should go with nuclear. No greenhouse gas or harmful emissions.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

It's a business article about a town saving money, not a science article or a global warming article. The entire point is that the decision was based on economics, not environmental issues.

Click to expand...

Nothing on Slate.com is a business article.

Everything published or posted there adheres to a "Narrative" and that means it's all political.

If you don't trust slate.com for business try Bloomberg.com. There are dozens of sites where you can read the same article about the Georgetown power plans. I don't understand why so many people seem to be negative about renewable energy. It's the way of the future -- that is until fusion power is developed and energy becomes free at that point.

TALON said:

I do not believe that man is causing global warming as much as some think, not to mention that some "experts" (Expert: a drip under pressure:grin argue that the warming is cyclical. I LOVE the out doors and wildlife, and I hope one day clean energy becomes efficient and inexpensive. But as I told some youngens, IF they found some way to have efficient solar panes that anyone/everyone can afford, don't think that you will get free energy (after the cost of the solar panel). The government :dark: will not let these energy companies fail AND they will want to $$$$$ also . Just my :2:

Click to expand...

Let's not let this turn into another Global Warming thread. The point of the article is that the town made an economic choice about the cost of their power contracts and the scarcity of water supplies. Global Warming and other environmental issues were not major considerations in their choice.

It has been interesting to watch the articles in my engineering trade magazine. The price to produce solar has been declining steadily and if it continues (which everyone currently expects) it should become cheaper than other options withing the next 5-10 years in most latitudes, and it already has in many southern latitudes.

I would think that solar has an additional advantage in bidding those long-term contracts in that they have a rock solid projection of future costs. The increase in future maintenance and labor is reasonably predictable and the cost of fuel, being zero, locks them in with some precision. Fossil fuel generated power has to project future costs as well but while they have similar ease in estimating future maintenance and labor, projecting what the cost of fuel will be five, ten, or twenty years ahead is something of a crapshoot. I am certain that requires the inclusion of a "safety factor" for future price increases. But even if it were more predictable, it would be assumed that fossil fuel prices will continue to increase over time while solar, being zero, will remain the same. Again, this presents a significant advantage in making long-term agreements.

DaveHein said:

The news item about Georgetown is interesting only because of the 100% figure. Other cities in Texas, such as Austin and San Antonio have already contracted for some of their power to come from wind and solar. I don't think there's enough solar and wind capacity to fully supply the larger cities yet. As time goes on there will be more usage of renewable energy sources. However, coal and natural gas plants will still be needed when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Given that the wind and solar farms are located in west Texas, which is hundreds of miles away, it seems that most of Georgetown's power will actually originate from the local coal and gas plants. It's just that they are paying for the energy that the wind and solar farms will be pumping into the grid.

Click to expand...

You are right that the story is on the radar because of the 100% figure, but I think it is also interesting for the fact that the town made the choice based on economic pragmatism, not for environmental reasons. Most other municipalities that have made such a dramatic switch have done so out of an intentional commitment to an environmental cause, even though it may cost more. That's not the case here.

And you are probably right that the actual power consumed in Georgetown will probably be generated more locally and may be from a traditional fossil fuel plant. The nature of the interconnected power grid and how power contracts work makes it hard to know for sure, but the fact is, they are paying for power from renewable sources that gets fed into the grid, and they pull power out of the grid from whatever source makes sense based on the grid architecture and generators online.

Who said "GLOBAL WARMING"???? Not me! c:

Peartree said:

It has been interesting to watch the articles in my engineering trade magazine. The price to produce solar has been declining steadily and if it continues (which everyone currently expects) it should become cheaper than other options withing the next 5-10 years in most latitudes, and it already has in many southern latitudes.

I would think that solar has an additional advantage in bidding those long-term contracts in that they have a rock solid projection of future costs. The increase in future maintenance and labor is reasonably predictable and the cost of fuel, being zero, locks them in with some precision. Fossil fuel generated power has to project future costs as well but while they have similar ease in estimating future maintenance and labor, projecting what the cost of fuel will be five, ten, or twenty years ahead is something of a crapshoot. I am certain that requires the inclusion of a "safety factor" for future price increases. But even if it were more predictable, it would be assumed that fossil fuel prices will continue to increase over time while solar, being zero, will remain the same. Again, this presents a significant advantage in making long-term agreements.

Click to expand...

You are right that solar is already cheaper than other sources of power in some areas of the country, and that's true even for residential customers, not just utilities with long-term contracts. And with the way that prices are trending, solar will likely be cheaper than other sources of power in almost all areas of the country in a few short years.

I've looked at installing solar on my home a few different times over the years, and the prices keep getting cheaper. The main reason I didn't do it 10 years ago had to do with the price of a new roof. The roof was new enough it didn't make sense to replace it, but it was also old enough that I might need to replace it in a few more years. I didn't want to install solar over a roof I might need to replace, but wasn't ready to replace it right then. Now I'm glad I waited. The price of panels is only a third of what it used to be. Installation still is expensive, but the panels themselves are cheaper. And now you can get some interesting leasing deals or even just a power purchasing agreement that will cost less than the peak tier rates you are already paying.

I read an article recently that stated there were 46,000 operating wind turbines in the United States. They provide 6% of our electric needs.

So if we want to get to 20% will need apx. 154,000.
But wait, there’s more.
Those 46,000 turbines supply 6% only if they are ALL OPERATING AT THE SAME TIME.
The fact is if you want 6% or 12% or 20% wind power available ALL THE TIME then you need to build three times as many as the amount of power you want.

So if you want 20% of America’s electricity derived from wind and you want that 20% to be available 24/7/364 then you don’t need 154,000 wind turbines you’ll need 462,000 give or take a couple of thousand.

And what are we going to do with all those un-recyclable blades as they begin to wear-out by the thousands.

Oops!! My mistake; by the tens of thousands.

boomtube-mk2 said:

I read an article recently that stated there were 46,000 operating wind turbines in the United States. They provide 6% of our electric needs.

So if we want to get to 20% will need apx. 154,000.
But wait, there’s more.
Those 46,000 turbines supply 6% only if they are ALL OPERATING AT THE SAME TIME.
The fact is if you want 6% or 12% or 20% wind power available ALL THE TIME then you need to build three times as many as the amount of power you want.

So if you want 20% of America’s electricity derived from wind and you want that 20% to be available 24/7/364 then you don’t need 154,000 wind turbines you’ll need 462,000 give or take a couple of thousand.

And what are we going to do with all those un-recyclable blades as they begin to wear-out by the thousands.

Oops!! My mistake; by the tens of thousands.

Click to expand...

Wind provides just over 4% of all the electrical power consumed in the US. That's what the installed capacity DOES produce, not what it COULD produce if all turbines were all running all the time, which they obviously can't. I'm sure eventually wind will account for a much larger part of the total energy portfolio of the country, but who knows if that will be 20% 24/7/365. That's sort of an arbitrary number, right?

The real question is whether wind is an economical source of power when you consider that the wind does not blow all the time, and there is a cost to install and maintain the turbines, and you might need to pay to replace and dispose of the blades as you mentioned (I have no idea how often that needs to be done, if ever). In some parts of the country where wind and space are plentiful, it is very economical and makes great sense.

In some small states with fairly low power demands combined with lots of wind, the percentage of electricity generated by wind is pretty high --- Iowa 27%, South Dakota 26%, Kansas 19%.

Most likely, wind will always be a compliment to other sources of power. In the article, the Texas utility decided to buy power from both a solar company and a wind company. Solar provides power when the sun is out, which is also the time of peak demand. Wind in Texas blows mostly at night and in the morning. So the two are complimentary, and one picks up where the other leaves off. There is no need for either source to be available 24/7/365.

DaveHein said:

I don't understand why so many people seem to be negative about renewable energy.

Click to expand...

Because, what are you going to do when it runs out? :wink:

The_Lone_Beagle said:

Because, what are you going to do when it runs out? :wink:

Click to expand...

Right! No one ever considers that.

*Without subsidies*, wind power in appropriate places is cheaper than natural gas, which is the cheapest fossil fuel. Solar is very nearly there. That doesn't mean wind turbines everywhere in the country--some places are far better than others for wind. There are lots of places where there will never be wind turbines--there just isn't enough wind to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, there's an awful lot of places where the wind is very reliable.

Also, don't assume that other industries don't create all kinds of nasty trash. At least wind turbine blades are relatively inert fiberglass. Burning coal, you get a whole lot of fly ash. Some of that gets used in concrete, but the rest is hard to dispose of. There have been a few recent cases of the fly ash ponds breaking loose into the rivers. Natural gas isn't as bad, but there are certainly environmental costs of production.

I once saw a story on the PBS series "This Old House" where the host made a side trip to a facility where they made those huge blades used on wind generators. The cores were made from balsa wood! The very same material that was once the material of choice for model rocket nose cones and fins. IIRC the skins were either fiberglass or carbon fiber. There is a large wind farm north and east of Nocona, Texas near where I used to fly rockets on a friend's cattle ranch before he sold it.

I wonder if they could recycle those blades once they become useless from fatigue?

tmacklin said:

I once saw a story on the PBS series "This Old House" where the host made a side trip to a facility where they made those huge blades used on wind generators. The cores were made from balsa wood!

Click to expand...

Wasn't that one of the factors implicated in the balsa shortage, several years back?

boatgeek said:

*Without subsidies*, wind power in appropriate places is cheaper than natural gas, which is the cheapest fossil fuel. Solar is very nearly there. That doesn't mean wind turbines everywhere in the country--some places are far better than others for wind. There are lots of places where there will never be wind turbines--there just isn't enough wind to make it worthwhile. On the other hand, there's an awful lot of places where the wind is very reliable.

Also, don't assume that other industries don't create all kinds of nasty trash. At least wind turbine blades are relatively inert fiberglass. Burning coal, you get a whole lot of fly ash. Some of that gets used in concrete, but the rest is hard to dispose of. There have been a few recent cases of the fly ash ponds breaking loose into the rivers. Natural gas isn't as bad, but there are certainly environmental costs of production.

Click to expand...

Yes, and one of those places is near Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. :wink: