California spot energy price: $99 MWhr
dave.w...@comcast.net
entire state load in California is only 27,000 MWs. Hmm....I sense
some price manipulation. AT this price, ALL forms of energy are trying
to come on line and provide power to the grid (solar is not, as the
sun is too low in the sky right now).
David
Wonderer
I don't live in CA and that's what I am paying. You can't get that
kind of convenience and cost liveing off-grid. They get a lot of
sunshine in CA which reduces energy use in winter and increases it in
Summer.
dave.w...@comcast.net
If you own a home, yet, that's true. If you live in a city, very
unlikely. If you live where it's very foggy, unlikely. Today the price
dropped to $26. I haven't seen it that low in years.
David
Chris Torek
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Rightnow, the price for power is slightly more than $99/MWhr. Yes, the
>entire state load in California is only 27,000 MWs. Hmm....I sense
>some price manipulation.
Maybe ... but the Pacific DC Intertie was down that week
(the posting above was dated Mar 30), and this is "generator
maintenance season".
The newsdata.com price archives show the NP15 and SP15 prices
ranging to 71, not 99 (<http://www.newsdata.com/wps/pr033007.html>).
Of course these are just specific points; others may have been
higher.
(Prices during the 2000-2001 manipulation era were running up to
$400. Natgas was also as high as $60 at Topock, at that time.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
brad...@gmail.com
What's wrong with $100/gallon of petrol/diesel, and with having to pay
$1/kwhr upon average (with california paying at least twice the
national average).
After all, I'm almost certain that other forms of alternative energy
will not be jacking up their prices to suit.
-
Brad Guth
K. Jones
<dave.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1175468920.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It's an *hourly* price, not "daily".
Quite often the price will fluctuate from the mid $20 to $100 in a few
hours....anywhere on the North American grid, not just California.
Don't know if there is a similar public website for California, but you can
watch Ontario's dispatch essentially "live" here:
http://www.iemo.com/imoweb/marketdata/marketToday.asp
dave.w...@comcast.net
First, this was the price...and it's not hourly either, it is in 15min
increments. Look at the week I mentioned. The CAL ISO site it cited
has it running as a ticker along the bottom of the page. That point
about Califorinians paying twice the national price IS the point...and
the way the bidding system still works is that almost free geothermal,
cheap nuclear, more expensive NG and alternative power all get the
SAME price, the highest price, not what they bid the price for...it's
a "Dutch auction" and that's never been changed. So, expensive GT's vs
even more expensive wind and solar (I don't think there is actually
any commercial solar in California yet) don't really compete with the
cheaper hydro, geothermal (we have quite a lot of that) and nuclear
all get the same plus $33/MWhr price...or the $99/MWhr price when it
goes that high.
David
bill
Which all strikes me as being exactly as it should be. your KWH
is not better than bob's kwh. however, it does rather beg the qestion
of why there aren't electricity resellers who buy electricity to fill
their reservoirs at the low rates and simply resell at the higher
rates. seems like that would go a ways toward smoothing out the
prices and be quite profitable besides!
dave.w...@comcast.net
If by 'reservoirs' you mean hydro...only 1% of hydroelectric
generators are equipped to reverse polarity on the gens to turn them
into pump storage devices. In California and the West Coast, all hydro
is based on the seasonal snow melt and precipitation. it would be a
huge capital expense to turn the water turbine/generators into pump
storage devices. Worth investigating, though.
David
bill
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of holding lakes
designed and built specifically for the purpose. a 40 million gallon
holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30 feet of head
represents 10 mwh of energy storage, at a difference of say $40
between daily buy and sell price, that means $400/day in income from
the round trip (call it $300 after inefficiencies)
the investment will be approximately $100k to construct the lake
and another 200k for the reversible turbine w/ generator (recta-
numerical extraction proceedure here, corrections welcome), which
would give a 3 year economic payback on a small, suboptimal
installation!
brad...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's 100% correct, and the federal and state run energy cartels
would in fact spend every last cent of YOUR money in order to
accomplish that sort of reverse reservoir flooding. It's what
government does best, to waste our loot and precious time to boot,
just as they fully intend to make anything that's solar, wind, tidal
or even future geothermal derived as spendy as all get out.
Hitler and his team of Jewish wizards were actually a whole lot more
energy smart and efficient.
-
Brad Guth
brad...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds good enough to eat, and if possible going for holding 100 fold
more volume at a greater head pressure of at least 100 meters should
be done at all cost.
Hydroelectric is after all 100% renewable to begin with, and we could
always use another crater lake or two. Actually, a good nuclear bomb
might be an efficient alternative for creating that deep lake basin in
the first place (I'm sure ELF or GreenPeace will not terribly mind,
especially once they're all rounded up and sent to Iraq)
-
Brad Guth
bill
Reason I picked 30 feet and 10 million gallons is that they are
numbers available to a standard lot in most places. 10 million
gallons is 6 acres 5 feet deep, not a large lot. 30 feet is an
amount of fall available on 10 acre or smaller lots in most localles.
The beauty is that at those levels, you're not really disturbing
much and the costs are small. Now, I realize that you're a total
nutball, but try to join the rest of us on the planet earth for a bit,
building a facility like that means that you can then build a windmill
onsite and sell the electricity it produces when the price is right
instead of when the wind blows. or a solar farm, or whatever energy
generation form you like, it HELPS renewable, doesn't hurt it.
dave.w...@comcast.net
Most big projects in the US (and around the world) that have helped
develop the US (and world wide) have been with gov't initiated tax-
payer dollars, be it Lake Mead to the levees in California to the
railroads, interstate hwys, the Tennessee Valley Authority, you name
it. Your argument is a-historical. You bizarro world view of "hitler"
and "jews" knows no parallel universe I'm familiar with.
David
dave.w...@comcast.net
Bill, building a 40 million gallon lake in an empty hole is going to
cost a lot more than 100k!!! Com'on! Other than that if one could do
what you suggest...play the spot market (or even the day ahead market)
someone would of done this already.
If was worth it, PG&E and the State of Calfornia which owns the
largest collections of dams in the US would of studied and attempted
to do this already.
David
brad...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
bill, I've been thinking that you are 100+% right as rain.
Earth as it stands needs roughly twice the energy, and this energy
also needs to become much cleaner and at not half the current end-user
cost. If we give government and local states any say, as such we'll
be lucky to end up with half of what we currently have, and it'll be
costing twice again as much.
Once we've established the mostly private owned cache of spare/surplus
energy to burn (sort of speak); Back-Flooding a Reservoir = Green
Energy in a lake.
California spot energy price: $99 MWhr
(often means the combined efforts of ENRON and the local utility will
be jacking off twice that energy cost for their end-users)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/14277d1ffa700718/1022b26b4c8df322?lnk=st&q=guth+brad&rnum=3&hl=en#1022b26b4c8df322
"a 40 million gallon holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30
feet of head represents 10 mwh of energy storage"
Reverse polarity hydroelectrics; Sounds almost good enough to eat,
and if possible going for holding 100 fold more volume at a greater
head pressure of at least 100 meters should be done at all cost.
Obviously many of our existing dams could be retrofitted for best
accomplishing this method, so that each peak draw-down at least starts
off with as much head pressure as possible.
Hydroelectric is after all 100% renewable to begin with (often
receiving more of nature's water than we can possibly know what to do
with), and I do believe that we could always use another crater lake
or two. Actually, a good nuclear bomb might be an efficient
alternative for creating that deep lake basin in the first place (I'm
sure ELF or GreenPeace will not terribly mind, especially once they're
all rounded up and sent to Iraq for guarding Exxon's share of Muslim
oil).
We might even obtain that artificial lake indirectly, and at a good
enough elevation in the process of our having to excavate our
relatively piss poor dregs of yellowcake, that'll soon enough become
worth $1000/kg.
So, instead of making the nifty likes of LH2 or the do-everything
better alternative of H2O2,t either of which would by itself represent
a considerable win-win for all of us (including all sorts of improved
fossil fuel burning aspects), as easily derived from any such surplus
of wind/solar/stirling derived energy that's capably worthy of
delivering 40 kw/m2, as can be safely taken as is from such energy
tower footprints, whereas instead we can merely utilize that spare and
clean energy for getting as much reservoir water as possible back up
into those energy storage lakes of fresh water, that's also a good
enough cash of water for a number of other uses besides generating
such clean peak energy on demand from each of these hydrostatic cells.
Some of the coastal or island located hydrostatic cells could even be
stocked with saltwater. Obviously we're not talking about all that
much efficiency here, just pondering the alternatives to otherwise
ignoring or otherwise wasting each and every other spare kwhr that
comes along.
-
Brad Guth
brad...@gmail.com
> Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of holding lakes
> designed and built specifically for the purpose. a 40 million gallon
> holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30 feet of head
> represents 10 mwh of energy storage, at a difference of say $40
> between daily buy and sell price, that means $400/day in income from
> the round trip (call it $300 after inefficiencies)
> the investment will be approximately $100k to construct the lake
> and another 200k for the reversible turbine w/ generator (recta-
> numerical extraction proceedure here, corrections welcome), which
> would give a 3 year economic payback on a small, suboptimal
> installation!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's odd; we have another GOOGLE/Usenet taking of my honest
contribution, yet it's nowhere to behold.
bill, I've been thinking that you are 100+% right as having rain in a
big sistern.
Earth as it stands needs roughly twice the energy, especially of peak
energy demands, and this energy also needs to become much cleaner and
at not half the current end-user cost. If we give government and
local states any say, as such we'll be lucky to end up with half of
what we currently have, and it'll be costing twice again as much.
Once we've established the mostly private owned cache of spare/surplus
energy to burn (sort of speak); Back-Flooding a Reservoir = Green
Energy in a lake.
California spot energy price: $99 MWhr
(often means the combined efforts of ENRON and the local utility will
be jacking off twice that energy cost for their end-users)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/14277d1ffa700718/1022b26b4c8df322?lnk=st&q=guth+brad&rnum=3&hl=en#1022b26b4c8df322
"a 40 million gallon holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30
brad...@gmail.com
brad...@gmail.com
honest contribution, yet it's nowhere to behold. Perhaps it's getting
hidden along with all of those Muslim WMD and Usama bin Laden.
Dave.walt, I've been thinking that your topic contributor "bill" is
100+% right as having rain in a big elevated sistern.
Brad Guth
official taking of my honest contribution, yet it's nowhere to behold.
Muslim WMD and Usama bin Laden. It looks as though our "dave.walt" has
pulled the topic plug.
Dave.walt, I've been thinking that your following topic contributor
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
brad...@gmail.com
roughly twice the energy, especially on behalf of accommodating peak
energy demands, and this energy also needs to become much cleaner and
local states any say, as such we'll be lucky to end up with half of
what we currently have, and it'll be costing twice again as much.
Once we've established the mostly private owned and operated cache of
spare/surplus energy to burn (sort of speak), such as that created and
promoted by the likes of Warren Buffet; Back-Flooding a Reservoir =
Green Energy in a lake is what becomes more than doable.
Dave.walt, I've been thinking that your following topic contributor
"bill" is 100+% right as rain in having a big elevated sistern.
California spot energy price: $99 MWhr
(often means the combined efforts of ENRON and the local utility will
be jacking off twice that energy cost for their end-users)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/14277d1ffa700718/1022b26b4c8df322?lnk=st&q=guth+brad&rnum=3&hl=en#1022b26b4c8df322
"a 40 million gallon holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30
feet of head represents 10 mwh of energy storage"
Reverse polarity hydroelectrics; Sounds almost good enough to eat,
and if possible going for holding 100 fold more volume and at a
greater head pressure of at least 100 meters should be done at all
cost. Obviously many of our existing dams without this capability
could be retrofitted for best accomplishing this energy storage
method, so that each peak draw-down at least starts off with as much
head pressure as possible.
Hydroelectric is after all 100% renewable to begin with (often
receiving more of nature's water than we can possibly know what to do
with), and I do believe that we could always use another crater lake
or two. Actually, a good nuclear bomb might be an efficient
alternative for creating that deep lake basin in the first place (I'm
sure ELF or GreenPeace will not terribly mind, especially once they're
all rounded up and sent to Iraq for guarding Exxon's share of all that
Muslim oil).
We might even obtain that artificial lake indirectly, and at a good
enough elevation in the process of our having to excavate our
relatively piss poor dregs of yellowcake, that'll soon enough become
worth $1000/kg.
So, instead of making the nifty likes of LH2 or the do-everything
better alternative of H2O2, either of which but especially h2o2 would
by itself represent a considerable win-win for all of us (including
all sorts of improved fossil fuel burning aspects), as easily derived
from having any such surplus of wind/solar/stirling derived energy,
that's capably worthy of delivering from a footprint energy density of
40 kw/m2, as can be safely taken as is from such energy tower
footprints. Instead we can merely utilize that spare and clean energy
for getting as much reservoir water as possible back up and as high as
possible into those energy storage lakes of fresh water, that's also a
good enough cashe of water for any number of other uses besides
generating such clean peak energy on demand from each of these
hydrostatic cells.
Some of the coastal or island located hydrostatic cells could even be
stocked with saltwater. Obviously we're not talking about all that
much overall cycle efficiency here, just pondering the alternatives to
bill
umm.... no, 40 million gallons is not that big. 100k is
generous.
brad...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree, that having many small and privately owned units of
hydrostatic cells is worth doing, with some natural basin containment
sites capable of storing considerably more volume and having a much
greater fall that's very much worth having.
Ideally the vertical fall is what's worth the most hydroelectric
energy.
Using a 100% displacement vane type of rotor is also worth more
hydrostatic energy conversion than a conventional turbine that'll
require velocity that's not going to be the case at merely a 30 foot
fall, unless the diameter and thus volume of that flow is fairly
large.
In other words, going as much vertical as possible is key to having
accomplished the best energy storage density from any given amount of
water.
Of course the likes of ELF and GreenPeace (easily soft funded by ENRON
and Exxon) will be doing all they can to prevent any such efforts that
might lead to any reductiion in energy cost to us end-users.
-
Brad Guth
bill
I have no confidence whatsoever in the state of california as
regards sensible energy policy. their goal seems to be to make it as
expensive as is humanly possible. As for PG&E, it's probably a better
investment for them to simply build a methane peaker.
brad...@gmail.com
>
> Most big projects in the US (and around the world) that have helped
> develop the US (and world wide) have been with gov't initiated tax-
> payer dollars, be it Lake Mead to the levees in California to the
> railroads, interstate hwys, the Tennessee Valley Authority, you name
> it. Your argument is a-historical. You bizarro world view of "hitler"
> and "jews" knows no parallel universe I'm familiar with.
>
> David
In that case, you're living within Hitler's cozy world of government
domination over most everything that matters, and you should expect to
pay more, lots more, and make due with less of just about everything
that matters, that is unless you're one of those insiders taking as
much loot and getting all the inside benefits to boot.
Would a 1:1 government be sufficient? (because that's where we're
headed)
Anything government can accomplish, privately can be accomplished at a
tenth the cost.
Of course the takings of land for the public good is somewhat of a
government specialty.
Government is why we still do not have a proper energy grid.
Government is why we're not 50% nuclear and more efficient than
France.
Government is why we're not 25+% solar pv, solar stirling and wind
powered.
Government is also why we're still not utilizing tidal energy.
Government is why we're flooded out of our homes and commercial
property.
Government is why Ross dam wasn't 50 foot higher (doubling the stored
energy worth)
Government is why we're at war (again) because of what government
caused in the first place.
Government is why everything is going to cost you lots more and give
you less.
Going all out government is why we're having to go without more of
just about everything.
In other words, government is why we'll never have surplus/spare
energy for any reason that'll benefit humanity or that of our
environment. A controlled and/or orchestrated short supply always
insures top dollar and a win-win for those in charge.
Muslims or anything Islamic are not the ones in charge of our
government and mainstream media (including whatever's published into
textbooks). I wonder who is? (it sure as hell is not atheists)
National news reporting is down to the dull roar of being soft news,
and otherwise of essentially pay-per-view infomercials made to look
and sound like news. That's our government in action, or rather lack
of action whenever it comes down to policing their own kind.
-
Brad Guth
brad...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
dave.walt is another certified rusemaster, so expect the usual anti-
think-tank flak no matters what.
Remember that 99.9% of thus Usenet is hocus-pocus, and otherwise more
Jewish than not. That's why the likes of "dave.walt" are pro big-
energy and pro big-government every step of the way, and is also why
you're going to be paying more for everything under the sun (that is
if his government left you with any decent paying job that's worth
doing).
-
Brad Guth
dave.w...@comcast.net
> On Apr 11, 3:22 pm, dave.walt...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > Most big projects in the US (and around the world) that have helped
> > develop the US (and world wide) have been with gov't initiated tax-
> > payer dollars, be it Lake Mead to the levees in California to the
> > railroads, interstate hwys, the Tennessee Valley Authority, you name
> > it. Your argument is a-historical. You bizarro world view of "hitler"
> > and "jews" knows no parallel universe I'm familiar with.
>
> > David
>
> In that case, you're living within Hitler's cozy world of government
> domination over most everything that matters, and you should expect to
> pay more, lots more, and make due with less of just about everything
> that matters, that is unless you're one of those insiders taking as
> much loot and getting all the inside benefits to boot.
Hitler is only an extension of big capital to workers revolution and
the threat of "communism". Gov't preceeded Hitler and followed him.
The Germans today live under a 'gov't', you silly anarchist views
notwithstanding.
> Would a 1:1 government be sufficient? (because that's where we're
> headed)
>
> Anything government can accomplish, privately can be accomplished at a
> tenth the cost.
LIke?
> Of course the takings of land for the public good is somewhat of a
> government specialty.
Been done for 300 years. It's why there is an Interstate highway
system, a grid, food on the table, life.
> Government is why we still do not have a proper energy grid.
Sorry? The Grid is privately owned, but *regulated*.
> Government is why we're not 50% nuclear and more efficient than
> France.
But Government is WHY the French have 80% nuclear. ZERO private money.
They "Took from private industry and made it public". Good, they
should do that here. It's an example for the world.
> Government is why we're not 25+% solar pv, solar stirling and wind
> powered.
Sorry? Not enough private money invested? Hmm...what do you propose
and how has "gov't" stopped this?
> Government is also why we're still not utilizing tidal energy.
IT is?There are gov't laws AGAINST this? Where? Cite one?
> Government is why we're flooded out of our homes and commercial
> property.
Gov't incompetence. There would be ZERO flood control without
gov't...there are and never have been and never will be non-
governmental flood control. No money in it.
> Government is why Ross dam wasn't 50 foot higher (doubling the stored
> energy worth)
Have no idea what you are talking about . Who build this dam in the
first place???
> Government is why we're at war (again) because of what government
> caused in the first place.
Zzzzzzzz.
David
brad...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Obviously you're going all out for the 1:1 ratio of having a
government worker with full benefits per each nongovenment soul, as
well as on behalf of promoting your $1/kwhr, and lo and behold we'd
still be having to make due with that piss poor grid and nothing all
that viable on the books that might otherwise put the slightest dent
in the deep pockets of your good buddy big-energy and even bigger
government friends.
Playing word games and of excluding evidence is obviously the limit of
your supposed expertise, of which even Hitler was actually a better
word and world domination game player. Obviously you and others of
your born-again remorseless kind voted for our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush), so no wonder we're at war with most anyone getting
in our way of taking their energy.
BTW; how much clean and affordable energy did you manage to put on
that grid today?
-
Brad Guth