3 ms·

> The higher oil consumption is temporary until delayed utility scale solar and geothermal projects come online Then why not keep the plant online until solar

> The higher oil consumption is temporary until delayed utility scale solar and geothermal projects come online Then why not keep the plant online until solar is running. Increasing energy costs will affect the poorest and most vulnerable. There’s no pressing need to shut down the plant sooner than its replacement is ready.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Because coal plant retirements (and the coal deliveries those plants require) are planned quite a bit in advance. Average electric bill will go up $15/month (~4%) in the interim (not trivial, but also not catastrophic). It’s a political issue to subsidize that unexpected short term cost, not a technical issue to keep an aging plant running. Energy transitions aren’t easy. There will be missteps. (I would agree the local and or state government should provide support for low income electric users impacted by this until rates come back down from more renewables online pushing out oil generation; cut the utility a check and define the means testing)
- junofan 4y ago
  To me it’s a clear case of bad policy. Good goals don’t magically make for good policy. > Average electric bill will go up $15/month What does bad policy look like in your opinion, if not this? It’s an avoidable fuck-up.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    If a 4% increase seems like bad policy to you in a high inflation (~9%) macro environment, your expectations are likely unrealistic. There would’ve been a cost to keep the coal plant running, including buying coal on the spot market at highly elevated (compared to long term contracts) prices (~300-400%). https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2022-07-12/coal-prices-are-breaking-records-but-production-is-dropping https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2022-07-12/coal-...
    - prepend 4y ago
      It’s an avoidable 4% increase. That’s why I think it’s poor execution. If my city increased by utility price by 4% because they messed up the sequencing on a contract it would be a sign of poor planning.
      - bandushrew 4y ago
        Sure, but the cost of really good planning that never messes up sequencing is likely to add a lot more than 4% to your utility bill. How much more are you really willing to pay for completely flawless sequencing?
      - scheme271 4y ago
        Part of the issues were due to an unforeseen pandemic that messed up the supply chains and increased prices drastically. However keeping the plant running may not have been feasible. There's some coal plants on Maui were parts suppliers shutdown or simply don't produce spares anymore. The energy producer there is faced at trying to get custom fabricated parts and hoping they work or building a whole new plant to provide interim power. A lot of these projects were planned years in advance and major disruptions (like a global pandemic) can wreak havoc on plans.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

toomuchtodo 4y ago

Because coal plant retirements (and the coal deliveries those plants require) are planned quite a bit in advance. Average electric bill will go up $15/month (~4%) in the interim (not trivial, but also not catastrophic). It’s a political issue to subsidize that unexpected short term cost, not a technical issue to keep an aging plant running. Energy transitions aren’t easy. There will be missteps. (I would agree the local and or state government should provide support for low income electric users impacted by this until rates come back down from more renewables online pushing out oil generation; cut the utility a check and define the means testing)

junofan 4y ago
To me it’s a clear case of bad policy. Good goals don’t magically make for good policy. > Average electric bill will go up $15/month What does bad policy look like in your opinion, if not this? It’s an avoidable fuck-up.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  If a 4% increase seems like bad policy to you in a high inflation (~9%) macro environment, your expectations are likely unrealistic. There would’ve been a cost to keep the coal plant running, including buying coal on the spot market at highly elevated (compared to long term contracts) prices (~300-400%). https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2022-07-12/coal-prices-are-breaking-records-but-production-is-dropping https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2022-07-12/coal-...
  - prepend 4y ago
    It’s an avoidable 4% increase. That’s why I think it’s poor execution. If my city increased by utility price by 4% because they messed up the sequencing on a contract it would be a sign of poor planning.
    - bandushrew 4y ago
      Sure, but the cost of really good planning that never messes up sequencing is likely to add a lot more than 4% to your utility bill. How much more are you really willing to pay for completely flawless sequencing?
    - scheme271 4y ago
      Part of the issues were due to an unforeseen pandemic that messed up the supply chains and increased prices drastically. However keeping the plant running may not have been feasible. There's some coal plants on Maui were parts suppliers shutdown or simply don't produce spares anymore. The energy producer there is faced at trying to get custom fabricated parts and hoping they work or building a whole new plant to provide interim power. A lot of these projects were planned years in advance and major disruptions (like a global pandemic) can wreak havoc on plans.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]