Michigan Renewables Cheaper than Coal: Another State Success Story

[kristopher]

Michigan Renewables Cheaper than Coal: Another State Success Story

...Michigan's 2008 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) law required the state commission to report on how the law was working in practice. The February 15, 2012 report was a report card on the remarkable success of that state's RPS law. It stands in marked contrast to many of the critics of state renewable laws like Grover Norquist who don't get their facts straight and claim that these laws raise rates, force ratepayers to buy more expensive renewable power, and don't create any economic benefits.

...

First, they said the law has generated over $100 million in investments in the state, spurred manufacturing, and created jobs.

Second, the law has led to more than 100 megawatts of new renewable capacity in the state, putting it on track to meet its 10% requirement. So the law is working.

Third, and this might be the most dramatic point made by the Commission, the cost of these new renewable projects -- including, wind, solar and hydro -- is less than the cost of a new coal plant.

That deserves to be repeated. In contrast to ...

Relevant section starts on page 22
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/implementation_PA295_renewable_energy2-15-2012_376924_7.pdf

[kristopher]

1. Kick for the doubters

[caraher]

2. That's encouraging

But it sounds like the RPS in Michigan is weaker than it should be if Duke Energy pulls out of a wind project with the stated rationale that there wasn't a market for the power:

The Gail Windpower Project was always contingent on a number of factors, including securing a long-term agreement with a power purchaser for the clean electricity the wind farm would generate. The company determined that the timing for this particular project may not align with the anticipated need for renewable power in Michigan's wholesale electricity market.

Perhaps that explanation is a fig leaf for "we backed off in the face of local opposition." In any case, it would be nice to see feed-in tariffs or a more aggressive RPS.

[kristopher]

3. Michigan Renewables Cheaper than Coal: Another State Success Story

nt

[Nihil]

4. Simply parroting the original title is not a response to the point caraher made.

[FBaggins]

5. But if it's all you've got...

And you have a compulsive need to post...

[kristopher]

6. Have you heard? Michigan Renewables are cheaper than coal, it's another success story.

Isn't that great?

[FBaggins]

7. It is great...

...if only it were true.

[kristopher]

8. Relevant section starts on page 22

Relevant section starts on page 22
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/implementation_PA295_renewable_energy2-15-2012_376924_7.pdf

[FBaggins]

9. Except of course that it doesn't actually say that.

The HP article (which you failed to link), mistakenly summarizes the report that way... but that doesn't make it true.

You might try actually reading it. You could start with a simple question (which, given your prior track record will never happen):

The law allows utilities to charge their clients a pair of fees to cover renewables costs that exceed the alternatives. If renewables are actually cheaper than coal, it must be true that nobody is charging those fees. Right?

[kristopher]

11. Provide a citation

The document is rather long and appears to support the OP article. If you've found something that contradicts that write-up, then post specifics instead of trying to be coy. As it is, you appear to be making a false claim.

[FBaggins]

12. You think a document supports your position and yet it's too long to actually read?

On what basis would you argue that a specific page should be read if you have to confess that you don't understand the context (because you haven't even read it)?

Very well… I’ll lay it out simply. The claim is “Michigan Renewables Cheaper than Coal” Let’s correct that in stages (with the obvious caveat that this is merely to correct Milford’s deception, not to endorse actually building a coal plant):

1) Just reading the article you quickly realize that they’re not talking about Michigan actually spending less per kWh for existing coal plants vs. existing renewables. They’re comparing new contracts for renewables to an estimated cost per kWh to build a new coal plant. Obviously the existing coal plants produce electricity at well below that $133/MWh. So the correct title would be “New Michigan renewables cost less per kWh than building new coal plants” right?

2) Wrong. The price cited for those renewables is after federal and state incentives for new wind installations (about 95% of the renewables in the report). Incentives that may not exist in the future. So now we have “after we exclude part of the cost of new Michigan renewables, they cost less per kWh than building new coal plants”

3) Unfortunately, that’s still isn’t right. The price for “new coal” isn’t based on prices for recent coal plants built around the country… it’s based on an advanced-supercritical pulverized coal plant with carbon capture. That’s obviously a much more expensive proposition. That kind of plant can use 20-40% more coal and cost almost twice as much. So now we have “After excluding part of the cost of new Michigan renewables, they cost less per kWh than building the most expensive types of new coal plant”.

4) Done yet? Hardly. This wasn’t a comparison of turnkey pricing for these plants. There are lots of assumptions built into the estimated levelized cost:

a. They assumed a 40-year life for the plant. Why? Did they gross up the cost of wind production to represent retiring and rebuilding (after two decades of inflation) a replacement plant? Of course not.
b. They assumed a continuing rise in coal prices that isn’t supported by historical patterns. Why?
c. Over 40 years, capital costs are a big factor. You can juggle the results here (without impacting reality) by just picking a different number.
d. They assumed emissions costs based on federal legislation that doesn’t exist.
e. They already know that their estimate was worthless. It was redone just a couple years later and they came up with a much lower figure ($107 vs. $133)… but just decided to keep using the higher figure anyway.
Now we’re left with “After excluding part of the cost of new Michigan renewables, they cost less per kWh than building the most expensive types of new coal plant if we play dishonest games with the price of even that most-expensive coal plant.”

5) Now why would they play those games? It really isn’t complicated:

Pursuant to Section 21(6)(b) (MCL 460.1021(6)(b)), rate-regulated electric providers’
REPs were required to show that the life cycle cost of renewable energy acquired, less the life
cycle net savings associated with Energy Optimization Plans, did not exceed the life cycle cost of Electricity generated by a new conventional coal-fired facility.

So the real title should be “Michigan renewables aren’t in any way cheaper than coal, but the law requires us to document that they are… so this is what we came up with”

This real list would be even longer (we haven't even touched on the much larger impact of variability), but none of this exercise should have been required. You know for a fact that coal doesn't cost 13.3 cents per kWh. It should (it should cost more than that), but it doesn't. Any claim to the contrary falls clearly into the third bucket of "lies, d@mn lies..." etc.

[kristopher]

13. You asked a question in post 9 that you didn't address.

Because your positions are usually not able to be supported you routinely use the tactic of implying something that isn't true, rather than making clear, referenced statements which can be discussed.

In post 9 you tried that by saying "The law allows utilities to charge their clients a pair of fees to cover renewables costs that exceed the alternatives. If renewables are actually cheaper than coal, it must be true that nobody is charging those fees. Right?"

You were challenged to turn that into a specific point with references in the paper and you've failed to do that.

So, excuse me for being persistent, but please cite the page numbers you are referencing in your newest creation. As is you are far and away from the claim your first made, and given your track record what you've just written is likewise suspect.

Citations please.

[FBaggins]

14. Lol. Seriously?

You dodge a question and then complain that I didn't answer it for you?

You were challenged to turn that into a specific point

Because I'm supposed to be a mind reader and know that when you asked for a citation, you didn't mean for the point of the post, but rather for a question to you?

So, excuse me for being persistent

Not a chance... because we both know that isn't what you're doing. You're dodging (as usual)... while trying to spin it as something else. You're seriously going to pretend to have read the report but challenge something that's through the first few pages unless I post a specific page number?

Let's make this simple. The report does not support a claim that Michigan renewables are now cheaper than coal. Your argument from ignorance doesn't change that. You obviously can't support the position (because it's unsupportable), so you dodge and distract... as any regular here can predict you will do in your next reply.

[kristopher]

15. It is simple

You've made claims you say are from the paper. If they are then cite the pages.

ETA: YOU are seeking to contradict the OP so it is on you to support your work.

[FBaggins]

17. What part of "argument from ignorance" confused you?

The article makes a claim that isn't backed up by the report. Pointing that out doesn't shift the burden of proof to me.

The laughable part of this is that most of what I posted is on the very page that you keep asking others to read.

[kristopher]

18. You made very specific claims you said are from the report.

Document the page numbers please.

[kristopher]

16. Waiting for those page numbers Baggins.

I'd like some specific text in the paper to work with.

[jpak]

10. Bookmarked

K&R

[kristopher]

19. Nine More Dirty, Aging Coal Plants to Close; Total U.S. Retirements to 106 Plants Since 2010

Better than 50 plants per year...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11278609