Showing posts with label Wind Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wind Power. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

“What we are basically seeing is the beginning of the end of coal mining in southwestern Wyoming, which has gone on since before statehood.”

We ran this Saturday:
Lex Anteinternet: Mixed news for coal. .. and a glance at Glenrock....: Wyoming's largest utility to retire majority of coal-fired power plant units by 2030 Wind Farm north of Glenrock as viewed from Mu...
The Tribune has since looked at this in more depth and basically has come to the conclusion that Pacific Power is making a major shirt away from coal, and towards renewables.

This trend is too big too ignore.  And an economist at UW, Rob Godby, hasn't.  He's been quoted in the Tribune as saying:
What we are basically seeing is the beginning of the end of coal mining in southwestern Wyoming, which has gone on since before statehood.
We've reported on the long trend line on coal here before.

Coal: Understanding the time line of an industry

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqSqU4AV2BwA-wGeR_2YNQ5_MEA7cg_Q_Uxk8uGaqKgtBanT5x2s6DBZksuh9fI3B1F9m2bsz0YONXs2qumy4VdTRC9IQfWqLBIP4af4NKLz5nmLoVXcmfcMNiqiBwNtVJsT4c-Heh0Fw/s1600/scan0004.jpg  

The caption to that post, if you stop in and read it (it's one of my longer ones), notes that at the time I thought I might have a future in coal.  I didn't.  A lot of other Wyomingites have seen their careers in coal depart since then, while others are hanging on.  Godby is stating something, based on his analysis that is of an historic nature.

Saying something like that tends to target he speaker. Godby didn't say the demise of coal is a good thing, he just says its happening.  And in my post above, I noted the trend line, which is over a century old now, and what that seems to indicate. That doesn't mean I'm taking glee in it either.

The Tribune article also noted the rise of wind.  I keep hearing the critics of wind say that it only has been active due to incentives passed during the Obama Administration, which will end soon. Those certainly have had a major role, but missed in that is that now wind seems viable in and of itself without help.  Pacific Power's report wouldn't have read the way it did but for that.

And so we appear on the cusp of a major change.  It's one in which Wyoming will continue to play a role, but unique in it is the fading of an entire industry.  Wyoming hasn't really seen something like that since the fading of the fur trade in the 19th Century, before Wyoming was, really.

Saturday, October 5, 2019

Mixed news for coal. .. and a glance at Glenrock.

Wyoming's largest utility to retire majority of coal-fired power plant units by 2030


Wind Farm north of Glenrock as viewed from Muddy Mountain south of Casper.

This includes units at Dave Johnson, outside of Glenrock.

At the same time, the sale of mines to a Navajo corporation has been given the go ahead in spite of some questioning by members of the Navajo nation on whether the purchase is a good idea.

The reason that  might be questioned is because a person might legitimately look at the trend line for coal and not be too optimistic about it.  The closure of coal fired electrical generation units right withing the state really puts that into focus. Most of the coal  mined in Wyoming goes elsewhere, but if generating units are being closed down in the state, where transportation costs are obviously the lowest, there's reasons to be pessimistic about coal's future in general.  Particularly when the owners of one of those plants announced one of the units was being converted to natural gas.

Glenrock may be in the very epicenter of what we're seeing in terms of changing times and reflective of them.

I like Glenrock.

Indeed, in an odd tidbit, I guess, my wife and I spent our first night as a married couple in Glenrock where we stayed at the Hotel Higgins.

The little Converse County town between Casper and Douglas was originally Deer Creek Station, an Army post along the Oregon Trail.  It shares that sort of history with Casper, which of course was the site of at least three "stations" during the 1860s, and which is bordered on both sides, if you include the neighboring communities, by the locations of former Oregon Trail bridges.  In being an Oregon Trail place marker, Glenrock also shares a common history with Casper, as it was a marked place on the trail.  A small batholith there was the "rock in the Glen".

Glenrock as a town is at least as old as Casper, or at least I suspect it to be.  It supported ranching in the area, when transportation was much more primitive, and was an established compact town prior to World War One.  Oil was discovered between Casper and Glenrock in 1913 and the Big Muddy field was in development by 1916, fueling the refineries in Casper.  A refinery was built in Glenrock in 1917 to take advantage of the production which was closer to Glenrock than to Casper.

My father took this photograph of sheep in a pen, but I don't have any of the other details and can't quite tell where it is. It's clearly on a railroad, and the building in the background makes me suspect that it's near Glenrock, but I don't know for sure.

Following that, like all of Central Wyoming, Glenrock was tied to the oil and gas industry, and it has been ever since. But at some later point, and I don't actually know when, the major Dave Johnston Power Plant was built there.

Dave Johnston borders the North Platte River and is just a few miles away from a coal bed that at one time fueled it.  It became the economic hub of the town for decades.  It's been there my entire life and its so much in the background that its one of those things I don't ever think of as having not been there.  At least one of my earliest memories involves me going with my father to hunt east of Dave Johnston when I was no more than five.  My father's 1956 Chevrolet truck became stuck and we started to walk out, but a railroad crew stopped and pulled us out before we had to walk too far.  I recall my father was impressed that I hadn't been worried by the event.


St. Louis Catholic Church in Glenrock.

During the 1970s and 1980s Dave Johnston was a mock target for the Strategic Air Command, and occasionally you could see B-52 bombers flying low over it, using it as a mock Soviet target.  And during winter months you always take note of the plants steam rising up from a distance, a marker that you are near Casper if you are heading that way, or not far from Douglas if you are going in the other direction.

For many years now, the workforce at  Dave Johnston has been declining, and the town has been hurting as a result.  During  the oil boom of the 2000s the town picked up in economic activity as oil and gas workers passed through it.  Some lived there, but  many more were temporary residents or Casper residents, pulling off of the Interstate Highway to access the oilfield north of town.  An effort to boost the local agricultural community by putting in a sale barn failed, as modern transportation, perhaps, continued to give Riverton and Torrington, the established barns, the regional advantage.

And as wind has been coming in, the same is true.  Now, when you go by Glenrock, you not only see the massive coal fired power plant steaming just east outside of town, but massive wind turbines turning north of town.  If you take the highway out of the town, you run right past them on the highway.

Where this leads is yet to be seen. Converse County is having a major oil boom right now.  And it has a lot of wind turbine construction going on at the same time. The ranches in the area remain, but the town has also seen, very slowly, a unique retirement phenomenon in which Casperites retire there, wanting to stay in the region but tired of Casper's growth.  No fewer than three of the men I've served with in the National Guard have settled their in retirement, with two in Glenrock.

Glenrock was a way station on the Oregon Trail. Then a small ranching town.  Then an oil and gas town, and a power company town.  Where it's headed can't be known, but through Wyoming's boom and busts, it's remained remarkably viable, if not always fully well, compared to many other Wyoming communities.  It likely will weather the storms it seems to be facing fairly well.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Holding back the breeze?

King Canute proving that he couldn't hold back the tide.

Last week I had a couple of posts on coal and its prospects.

One of them related that the Tribune was reporting that coal was up to 75% of its pre bust production, an impressive recovery.  As that article noted this level of production might be market reasonable, rather than market overheated, and reflect the actual level of ongoing demand for the time being. That's really good news for coal.

The other article discussed the long history of coal's decline as an energy source.  The two articles aren't really inconsistent with each other and reflect, I suspect, the truth of coal's situation.  Long term, it's been in decline for market share for over a century.  Short term, it captures new markets from time to time and its still around right now, and will be for a long time.


Well, not if a handful of Wyoming's legislators have their say.

It's really unlikely to pass but some of our state's lawmakers want to pass a bill that requires power generators to stop supplying power via wind energy and which will financially penalize them if they do.  The idea is that this forces the power companies to stick to hydroelectric and coal in Wyoming.

This is really silly.

It may also be unconstitutional as an act in restraint of legitimate legislative power in restraint of trade, including trade across state lines, and "special legislation" favoring one type of company over another.

But beyond that, it's just flat out silly.  

Wyoming is such a small domestic electric market that, at best, all this would do is harm domestic industry, such as wind farms and power companies with wind generators, while benefiting nobody.  How much electricity do these fellows think we consume?  Power generation is on a big grid, gentlemen, and those power plants are generating power for people in California, not you, really.

And Wyomingites benefit from the wind generation industry, just like they do the coal industry.  Jobs constructing and maintaining wind farms, etc., all play their part in our employment picture.

It's odd how in Wyoming everyone routinely claims that we're radically in favor of the free market. . . right up until it impacts our pocket books and then some of us aren't so keen on it anymore.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Wind Power approaches maturity.

Coincident to my posting this:
Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: December 19: A Very B...: Today In Wyoming's History: December 19 : 2016  A recorded gust of wind reached 88 mph on the base of Casper Mountain, a new record 14...
the Tribune reports that wind power is now the cheapest form of electrical generation in some regions now.

The cost per kilowatt of generating electricity from wind has long been one of the main points of its critics. But, as tends to be the rule, costs go down as a technology advances.  That's now happened with wind which in turn means that wind generation has joined hydroelectric, coal, gas and nuclear as viable means of generating electricity on an industrial basis.  Wind, therefore, will not be going away in the power generation field.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

They could get by without electricity


 Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Plant, built in 1899.

Some time ago I posted this item:
I've been breaking it down since, although my speed in doing that has been arrested a bit by the number of posts I've been putting up on the Punitive Expedition of 1916.  Even there, however, some daily living items have crept into the posts
Lex Anteinternet: Ancestry.com: 9 Reasons Your Great-Great-Grandpar...: An interesting item from Ancestry.com: 9 Reasons Your Great-Great-Grandparents Were More Awesome Than You As 21st-century adults, it...
Here's another one of the interesting items.
3. They could get by without electricity.
Very true.  And a topic I haven't directly covered.  I'll have to add this one to the hopper.
So here we'll cover it, maybe.  And indeed, we'll combine it a bit with a second thread I was riffing off of, from a recent George F. Will column.  Zapping two birds with one birds with one bolt, so to speak.  I've been obliviously fascinated by the following quote from a recent George F. Will column:
It turns out that this topic, however, is something that's surprisingly hard to get good information on.

I thought it would be relatively easy to discover when houses were first commonly wired for electricity.  My suspicion was the 1920s, and indeed the 1920s might be right but it might have actually been a bit earlier, particularly depending upon a person's location. There's some suggestions to that effect out on the web, but unfortunately none of them are backed up by anything.  Be that as it may, it's clear that electrical generating was going on as a business proposition earlier than that.  Indeed, WyoHistory.org states that electrical lighting came to Casper on June 12, 1900, with electricity coming from a power plant near one of the refineries.  Indeed, the Natrona County Tribune reported the event on its June 14 front page, without really ever explaining where the electric lights were going to be.  Presumably that electricity was used for industrial and street lighting purposes, and not for average homes but, based upon what I read, I honestly can't say who had the first electric lights around here.  Clearly on June 12, 1900, there was probably not a single house in Casper that had electricity, and that would be true for almost every house in the United States.  But it wouldn't be that way long and even then it wasn't true everywhere.

Absolutely frightening electric toaster from 1908.

Starting around 1900 the amount of electrical power generated in the US expanded enormously.  The original power plants were small affairs, by modern standards, and were often petroleum fired generator affairs.  That sort of power generation still exists, of course, but not for domestic and large scale industrial use.  But soon more substantial generation facilities came into existance.  Electrical output from utility companies in the US went from 5.9 million kWh in 1907 to 75.4 million kWh in 1927 while the price of electricity declined 55%.  Not just lighting, but other electrical appliances began to appear in homes.  In 1903 the electric iron ws introduced, shwoing tghat there was indeed domestic power use at that time, and apparently electricity was trusted enough to be used in that fashion.  The electric toaster was introduced in 1909, followed by the popup toaster ten years later.  The electric vacuum was introduced in 1907.  The electric refrigerator was introduced in 1913.  The washing machine came on in 1930 and the dryer in 1935.

 Electric iron, 1908.  Note the outlet is a lamp.

Indeed, while we tend to think, for some reason, of electric lighting when we first think of electricity, we probably ought to think of the plethora of electrical appliances that came on after 1900.  Earlier in this blog, in our post Women in the Workplace: It was Maytag that took Rosie the Riveter out of the domestic arena, not World War Two, I've argued that it was domestic machinery, not the Second World War, that created the social change that altered the role of women in society, and I probably ought to expand on that to suggest that it was electricity that powered that social change.

Photograph from our earlier post about domestic machinery.  Woman in Montana vacuuming in her home, about 1940.  Of note, the book case on the right is a barristers case, something normally associated with lawyers.  She's vacuuming a large rug on a wooden floor.  What she isn't doing is packing that rug outside, probably with assistance, to beat it with a broom, which was in fact the time honored method of cleaning them.

Not that lighting is a minor matter.  And this taps into something I was going to make into a separate thread, but which is so close to the topic here I'll instead address it here, the thread I started as a draft first. I've quoted it above, and one of the things that Will stated was "No household was wired for electricity.  He also stated that "Flickering light came from candles and whale oil"  Perhaps, to set it in context, we should look at the quote again.
I don't dispute the details that Will recites here, but I do doubt the "more medieval than modern assertion.  Indeed, some of these things argue, I think, the other way around.  Still, it taps into what we're discussing here.  This is just the sort of thing that this blog exists to explore, particularly given that the time frame that Will is discussing, 1870 to 1970, fits right in with the time frame, sort of, that this blog is looking at, as earlier noted. 

Whale oil chandelier, photo from the Library of Congress.  Up until the Will entry, I'd never even considered there being such a thing as a whale oil chandelier.

What Will noted was quite true, but was this Medieval in character?  I'd assert not.  I don't really know, however.  Whaling has taken place to some extent since ancient times, but the widespread use of whale oil, I suspect, didn't come about until well after the Medieval period.  Indeed, it doesn't seem to have been done in an appreciably large manner until maybe the 17th Century, although whaling itself does go back much further than that.  Whale oil, once it became a common commodity, did see use in lamps in candles in an appreciable manner.   Starting in the 19th Century, however, kerosene began to come in.  Whale oil reached its peak in 1845 and then began to fairly rapidly decline thereafter as kerosene became more common, although whale oil would continue to see some use up until electrical generation replaced it in the early 20th Century, a fairly remarkable fact.

As a total aside, just as it is surprising, whale fat was also used for whale margarine, a truly odd thought now.

Electrical generation came first to towns and cities, and obviously first to one that had the means of generating electricity.  Coal, oil and hydroelectric generation all started to some in, in force, in the early 20th Century and even in the late 19th Century.  So, even though we haven't been able to really pin down a year for which most Americans in towns would have been using electricity domestically,  it does seem safe to say that it was no later than the 1920s, and maybe even a decade prior.  In the countryside, however, it took the Great Depression to bring electricity to the rural homes, farms and ranches.

Indeed, electricity is so common now that it probably doesn't seem as big of deal to us as it really was.  But it was a big deal to the nation.  Electricity hadn't been marketable enough to cause lines to be run to farms and ranches prior to the Depression, but by the Depression it was obvious to the administration that this was one of the areas where it seemed to be the case that rural Americans were falling behind urban ones in the standard of living.  How that would relate to a depression isn't instantly obvious, but you can make the case that extending electricity to rural homes would have a collateral economic impact.

Not all rural homes, it should be noted, lacked electricity.  Lots of rural homes, farms and ranches across the US had put in electricity on an "off the grid" basis by using wind power.  Now, electrical generation in that fashion always has some quirks, to be sure, and this would have been all the more the case at the time. Generators used for this purpose tended to be adapted from some other use and a lot of the on the spot electrification at the time would have been scary from our current prospective.  Added to that, wind isn't really reliable unless you have a lot of it, and a way to store the electricity that it generates. So, rural Americans using it were using it on a spotty basis. That was probably quasi adequate for their needs at the time but by the early 1930s it was becoming obviously less so. Still, it can't help but be noted that this is an aspect of the past that sort of oddly foreshadowed the future, as "off the grid" electricity is in vogue again.

The answer was a couple of government programs, including the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electric Administration, which brought power to the hinterlands.  REA was a big deal.

So, basically, going into World War Two, as the film Oh Brother Where Art Thou? would have it, "Everything's gonna be put on electricity and run on a payin' basis.", which is what occurred. The REA and other Federal agencies worked towards providing the rural areas of the nation with electricity and the entire country, pretty much, has been electrified ever since.  So much so that we are running something on electricity nearly all the time.

And that's the point really.  If we go back far enough, let's say 1896, we'd be in a recognizable time with recognizable people, but a tremendous amount of what we take for granted would not be, given the absence of electricity.  Even if we go only as far back to 1916, the year we've been focusing on a lot here, that would be true.  For average people in much of the United States what light you'd have at night would come from a lamp burning a fossil fuel.  And all that stuff we plug in for entertainment or convenience, just wouldn't be.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Weird Economic News, the blowing wind

Tax revenues from wind generation fell 15% last year.

That's truly odd.  The fall from coal is perfectly explainable, and the economic impacts of the big slowdown in petroleum are obvious.  But why wind?

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Energy preview of coming attractions.



According to the most recent issue of the AAPG explorer, Iran has the capacity to add 500,000 bbls/day to its production capacity relatively easily.  Beyond that, however, a decline in its petroleum infrastructure requires investment and building.

If that's done, it can add up to 900,000 bbls/day.  That's small, compared to Saudi Arabia, or the United States, but it's not insignificant.  The decline in US production due to the fall in prices has been about 130,000 bbls/day.

The long and the short of this is that the recent glut of petroleum on the market is likely to increase after the recent agreement with Iran is finalized. This will take months to have an impact, but the overall impact is to keep petroleum prices low, and perhaps drive them lower.  Oil at lower than $40/bbl for the foreseeable future seems likely.

On other news, contrary to some Internet myths, generation of electricity by wind power is now cheaper than any other market alternative, and the expansion of the same is retarded only by access to transmission lines.  This means that the argument on wind's viability is over, in spite of there being a local debate on the same with some insisting that it's dirtier in absolute terms than coal, and not viable but for government assistance.  It's gotten over its initial economic teething stage and locally it's only held up by regulation and a lack of transmission lines.

None of this will be really popular news locally, as it would appear nearly certain that we've entered a stage where oil exploration will really stall out and coal will continue to decline.  But stating those apparent facts, particularly for somebody whose lived through it before, doesn't mean a person is wishing the results, only noting what the facts seem to lead to.