How 'Big Tech's' 100% renewable deception, detached from reality politicians, and the legacy of Northwest hydropower are fueling false hopes of industrial development in Washington and Oregon.
I know it can be discouraging regarding the mainstream media blackout of common sense. Obviously, that's the why people like you and I are turning to Substack. Voices are beginning to rise and we cannot give up. It's about a grassroots movement of educating the electorate so we can stop electing anti-human, energy-ignorant politicians. And while my Substack is far from going viral, I just started posting in mid November 2023 and my top 4 posts have garnered more than 10,400 views; including state and federal politicians, regional utility colleagues, and other citizens and interested parties. Not bad for a side gig.
One of my goals is to introduce people like you to the more influential voices on Substack. So please read and support those I recommend on my home page.
Appreciate your feedback Ron. There have been several studies of the impacts of Lower Snake River Dam Breaching. I made reference to a study commissioned by BPA in another Substack post:
"In fact, a 2022 study commissioned by BPA revealed, using currently available technologies without the help of new natural gas power plants, it would require an “impractically large” 10,600 MW of wind and 1,400 MW of solar to do the job under a deep decarbonization scenario driven by Washington and Oregon clean energy laws."
"Additionally, the wind and solar replacement plan would cost between $277 to $517 per megawatt-hour (MWh) compared to the LSR dams which cost between $13 and $17 per MWh. This multiple orders of magnitude increase in costs would drive northwest retail electricity rates in 2045 to levels between 34% and 65% higher than today."
I enjoyed this comprehensive and detailed article.
Along the same lines, I would suggest that there is strictly no such thing as "renewables", an abused and misused term, per the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
Utilizing natural gas as a proven “always on” technology to fuel the transition to a nuclear future using SMRs indeed makes the most economic and environmental sense. If only the policy and decision makers would seek the truth and invest even a fraction of the time learning about this as they have given to the current “wind and solar above all else” dogma.
Rick, another terrific article (and cartoon). The grid is facing hard choices. It's important to address the realities. They won't be solved by fantasies, as you said.
Thank you for continuing to address our regional energy challenges and opportunities, Rick. I think it very important to outline the key variables in our regional “energy system”, given its complexities (and importance to our wellbeing). Yet, even with its complexities, there are still certain simple fundamentals that must be honored and that can be shared, and you do that well. I think the example of regional data centers, including consideration of the New-Large-Single-Load customer regulation, is valuable, especially when critically assessing the realities of proposed “green” industrial projects. I am looking forward to Part 2.
It occurred to me that big tech and others may be leveraging REC's to actually decrease their energy liability. You know more about this process but it is conceivable that because they can purchase REC's across state lines that they could be doing this to perform socially against the unreasonable mandates but also to help themselves to come cost savings.
Additionally, one of the things that the public MUST KNOW is that their rates are set based on the utilities COST meaning that if the local utility invests in high cost generation then that IS going to get translated into local rate increases. These choices are often required based on state laws but the public needs to learn how the cycle works that is costing them more each month. Just as the fuel for our cars is higher in Washington because of buffoonery corruption, we are also paying more on our power bills because of the same sort of ignorance.
Thanks Rick - very informative and enlightening article. I’m curious about the impacts from removing the Lower Snake River Hydro System and the persistent drumbeat to ban all natural gas use in new construction. What this seems to imply are more electric loads that replace natural gas along with EV mandates replacing ICE.
Has anyone modeled the impacts to Oregon and Washington if the near future brings the consequences from those actions?
Since these “proposals” involve both state and federal government agencies, I personally don’t see a good outcome.
What I would like to see from BPA and the 127 local utilities in their service area is a commitment to curtail the large loads first (data centers, universities, national labs and manufacturers) while keeping the lights and heating on for residential dwellings (single family and multi family apartments).
Otherwise, once brownouts and worse starts up, it’s not going to be pretty
Thank you, once again, Rick, for your spot-on assessment of the current delusional state of the green and clean energy lobby. At the bottom of it, as you and others have been correct in pointing out, the math does not support the green narrative. Solutions to the generation of ample affordable power are already at hand (I remind myself that the original plans included six working reactors at the Hanford site).
The other elephant in the room in terms of problems is that much of the underlying math can be "papered over" with fiat currency. Wind and solar, by and large, can only exist through the manipulation of federal and state subsidies (fiat) along with playing the shell game with so-called carbon credits (watch the money, the folks that will do well with these schemes are the carbon brokers). The folks with the high-end tech jobs will continue to do well, in spite of higher energy costs. I think of all the PNNL (Pacific NW National Lab) jobs... I worked there for several years -- excellent facilities, outstanding compensation packages and outrageous (unsustainable) pension plans, then look at the jobs in government, which continue to swell and bust at the seams. The folks on the bottom quartile will be ok -- the State will always be on the ready to pour out the "Inflation Busting Energy Checks (IBECs)." The middle-class is being eliminated; most are pushed into the bottom quartile (having a lifestyle of that bottom quarter), a few break ranks and get a govt-sector job while most are in the process of taking on second jobs, radically cutting discretionary spending and otherwise feeling the true cost of inflation (home and auto insurance costs are off the charts).
Your article is spot-on; however, unless I am mistaken, it will get little air-play. The state-controlled media will consistently work to support the green narrative, much in the manner that the "97% of scientists agree on climate change" false consensus has been repeated. I believe that a return to sanity will take place only after enough breakage occurs. This breakage includes wide-scale power outages, household budget contraction due to insanely high energy rates along with the visible breakdowns in wind-turbines in the Columbia Gorge as these units hit the edge of their maintenance lifecycle. For a lot of people, reality needs to slap them in the face before they have any hope of waking up. Keep up the good work Rick. With continued focused effort, We The Governed can bring back a world of rational actions in energy production.
Thanks for the valuable insights. I was especially interested in your comments on the Amazon data center in Umatilla, since I had just recently posted a piece on Facebook's data center in Prineville and a little about Google's data center in The Dalles. (https://alchristie.substack.com/p/oregons-mighty-data-centers) But as a layman, aMW is a new term that I wasn't familiar with. "Umatilla Electric power sales have increased by 5 million megawatt-hours since Amazon data centers showed up in their service territory; which is equivalent to over 570 average megawatts (aMW) on an annual basis."
Al, thank you for your kind remarks and interest in my writing. Average megawatts (aMW) is derived by simply dividing the electricity (electrical energy) produced in megawatt-hours (MWh) over a specified time period by the number of hours in the period. I have found that MWh numbers are too large and not grasped by the average person if you don't put them in perspective. So, since UEC power sales increased by 5 million MWh annually (which is the time frame utilities use when reporting); dividing 5 million MWh by 8,760 hours in a year, the hours cancel out and you are left with 570 MW. But because electricity consumption usually varies over time, you can then say that 570 MW represents the constant or average MW equivalent over the year. Now with this number in mind you can add perspective by referring to the size of a typical power plant. Which is what I did by saying that 570 aMW is equivalent to 100% of the output of a typical combined-cycle natural-gas power plant. To be more clear, I could have added that I was assuming the power plant runs at it's nameplate capacity every hour of the year.
R, thank you for another insightful article. Imho, this article lays out why the customer, NOT the gov't, should be the ones choosing the product & services. Can't wait 'til Amazon, & other energy sucking industries, get to experience rolling blackouts & prohibitively expensive electricity so they can't do their business cost effectively. Their investors, & customers, going after them for their lack of due diligence/fiduciary duty should be "entertaining".
If I might add one point: when folks use the term, "100% carbon free", it tells me that they've not a clue what they're talking about. It takes petroleum products to dig the "carbon free" elements out of the ground to make wind generators & solar panels. It takes petroleum products to transport those materials to the manufacturing sites. It takes petroleum products to manufacture the "carbon free" equipment. It takes petroleum products to assemble the "carbon free" equipment & to ship the equipment to the sites & to assemble the equipment. "Carbon free"???? ROTFLOL! (There r e a l l y must be a tooth fairy, too ;-)
Appreciate the thoughtful feedback Patrick.
I know it can be discouraging regarding the mainstream media blackout of common sense. Obviously, that's the why people like you and I are turning to Substack. Voices are beginning to rise and we cannot give up. It's about a grassroots movement of educating the electorate so we can stop electing anti-human, energy-ignorant politicians. And while my Substack is far from going viral, I just started posting in mid November 2023 and my top 4 posts have garnered more than 10,400 views; including state and federal politicians, regional utility colleagues, and other citizens and interested parties. Not bad for a side gig.
One of my goals is to introduce people like you to the more influential voices on Substack. So please read and support those I recommend on my home page.
Appreciate your feedback Ron. There have been several studies of the impacts of Lower Snake River Dam Breaching. I made reference to a study commissioned by BPA in another Substack post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/rickdunn/p/sawing-off-the-branch-were-sitting?r=kv2hx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
"In fact, a 2022 study commissioned by BPA revealed, using currently available technologies without the help of new natural gas power plants, it would require an “impractically large” 10,600 MW of wind and 1,400 MW of solar to do the job under a deep decarbonization scenario driven by Washington and Oregon clean energy laws."
"Additionally, the wind and solar replacement plan would cost between $277 to $517 per megawatt-hour (MWh) compared to the LSR dams which cost between $13 and $17 per MWh. This multiple orders of magnitude increase in costs would drive northwest retail electricity rates in 2045 to levels between 34% and 65% higher than today."
I enjoyed this comprehensive and detailed article.
Along the same lines, I would suggest that there is strictly no such thing as "renewables", an abused and misused term, per the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
Utilizing natural gas as a proven “always on” technology to fuel the transition to a nuclear future using SMRs indeed makes the most economic and environmental sense. If only the policy and decision makers would seek the truth and invest even a fraction of the time learning about this as they have given to the current “wind and solar above all else” dogma.
Rick, another terrific article (and cartoon). The grid is facing hard choices. It's important to address the realities. They won't be solved by fantasies, as you said.
Thank you for continuing to address our regional energy challenges and opportunities, Rick. I think it very important to outline the key variables in our regional “energy system”, given its complexities (and importance to our wellbeing). Yet, even with its complexities, there are still certain simple fundamentals that must be honored and that can be shared, and you do that well. I think the example of regional data centers, including consideration of the New-Large-Single-Load customer regulation, is valuable, especially when critically assessing the realities of proposed “green” industrial projects. I am looking forward to Part 2.
Thank you Rick. Spot on as always.
It occurred to me that big tech and others may be leveraging REC's to actually decrease their energy liability. You know more about this process but it is conceivable that because they can purchase REC's across state lines that they could be doing this to perform socially against the unreasonable mandates but also to help themselves to come cost savings.
Additionally, one of the things that the public MUST KNOW is that their rates are set based on the utilities COST meaning that if the local utility invests in high cost generation then that IS going to get translated into local rate increases. These choices are often required based on state laws but the public needs to learn how the cycle works that is costing them more each month. Just as the fuel for our cars is higher in Washington because of buffoonery corruption, we are also paying more on our power bills because of the same sort of ignorance.
Thanks Rick - very informative and enlightening article. I’m curious about the impacts from removing the Lower Snake River Hydro System and the persistent drumbeat to ban all natural gas use in new construction. What this seems to imply are more electric loads that replace natural gas along with EV mandates replacing ICE.
Has anyone modeled the impacts to Oregon and Washington if the near future brings the consequences from those actions?
Since these “proposals” involve both state and federal government agencies, I personally don’t see a good outcome.
What I would like to see from BPA and the 127 local utilities in their service area is a commitment to curtail the large loads first (data centers, universities, national labs and manufacturers) while keeping the lights and heating on for residential dwellings (single family and multi family apartments).
Otherwise, once brownouts and worse starts up, it’s not going to be pretty
Thank you, once again, Rick, for your spot-on assessment of the current delusional state of the green and clean energy lobby. At the bottom of it, as you and others have been correct in pointing out, the math does not support the green narrative. Solutions to the generation of ample affordable power are already at hand (I remind myself that the original plans included six working reactors at the Hanford site).
The other elephant in the room in terms of problems is that much of the underlying math can be "papered over" with fiat currency. Wind and solar, by and large, can only exist through the manipulation of federal and state subsidies (fiat) along with playing the shell game with so-called carbon credits (watch the money, the folks that will do well with these schemes are the carbon brokers). The folks with the high-end tech jobs will continue to do well, in spite of higher energy costs. I think of all the PNNL (Pacific NW National Lab) jobs... I worked there for several years -- excellent facilities, outstanding compensation packages and outrageous (unsustainable) pension plans, then look at the jobs in government, which continue to swell and bust at the seams. The folks on the bottom quartile will be ok -- the State will always be on the ready to pour out the "Inflation Busting Energy Checks (IBECs)." The middle-class is being eliminated; most are pushed into the bottom quartile (having a lifestyle of that bottom quarter), a few break ranks and get a govt-sector job while most are in the process of taking on second jobs, radically cutting discretionary spending and otherwise feeling the true cost of inflation (home and auto insurance costs are off the charts).
Your article is spot-on; however, unless I am mistaken, it will get little air-play. The state-controlled media will consistently work to support the green narrative, much in the manner that the "97% of scientists agree on climate change" false consensus has been repeated. I believe that a return to sanity will take place only after enough breakage occurs. This breakage includes wide-scale power outages, household budget contraction due to insanely high energy rates along with the visible breakdowns in wind-turbines in the Columbia Gorge as these units hit the edge of their maintenance lifecycle. For a lot of people, reality needs to slap them in the face before they have any hope of waking up. Keep up the good work Rick. With continued focused effort, We The Governed can bring back a world of rational actions in energy production.
Thanks for the valuable insights. I was especially interested in your comments on the Amazon data center in Umatilla, since I had just recently posted a piece on Facebook's data center in Prineville and a little about Google's data center in The Dalles. (https://alchristie.substack.com/p/oregons-mighty-data-centers) But as a layman, aMW is a new term that I wasn't familiar with. "Umatilla Electric power sales have increased by 5 million megawatt-hours since Amazon data centers showed up in their service territory; which is equivalent to over 570 average megawatts (aMW) on an annual basis."
Could you explain aMW for me?
Al, thank you for your kind remarks and interest in my writing. Average megawatts (aMW) is derived by simply dividing the electricity (electrical energy) produced in megawatt-hours (MWh) over a specified time period by the number of hours in the period. I have found that MWh numbers are too large and not grasped by the average person if you don't put them in perspective. So, since UEC power sales increased by 5 million MWh annually (which is the time frame utilities use when reporting); dividing 5 million MWh by 8,760 hours in a year, the hours cancel out and you are left with 570 MW. But because electricity consumption usually varies over time, you can then say that 570 MW represents the constant or average MW equivalent over the year. Now with this number in mind you can add perspective by referring to the size of a typical power plant. Which is what I did by saying that 570 aMW is equivalent to 100% of the output of a typical combined-cycle natural-gas power plant. To be more clear, I could have added that I was assuming the power plant runs at it's nameplate capacity every hour of the year.
R, thank you for another insightful article. Imho, this article lays out why the customer, NOT the gov't, should be the ones choosing the product & services. Can't wait 'til Amazon, & other energy sucking industries, get to experience rolling blackouts & prohibitively expensive electricity so they can't do their business cost effectively. Their investors, & customers, going after them for their lack of due diligence/fiduciary duty should be "entertaining".
If I might add one point: when folks use the term, "100% carbon free", it tells me that they've not a clue what they're talking about. It takes petroleum products to dig the "carbon free" elements out of the ground to make wind generators & solar panels. It takes petroleum products to transport those materials to the manufacturing sites. It takes petroleum products to manufacture the "carbon free" equipment. It takes petroleum products to assemble the "carbon free" equipment & to ship the equipment to the sites & to assemble the equipment. "Carbon free"???? ROTFLOL! (There r e a l l y must be a tooth fairy, too ;-)