Keystone XL Pipeline Project thread

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

In the end, President Obama may likely back this project to further boost the economy, and as part of any economy-related deal with Republicans. 

As he should. But I think it's disingenuous to be pitching this as an energy security measure when much of the oil coming through that pipeline is going to be leaving the country once its been refined. And it certainly isn't going to create this magical $2/gallon gasoline some Republicans insist they can deliver.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

Projected Forward Levelized Costs for Plants Online in 2018
Solar Thermal Cost per MWh = $261.50
Solar Photovoltaic Cost per MWh = $144.30
Nuclear Cost per MWh = $108.40
Conventional Coal Cost per MWh = $100.10
Natural Gas CCC Cost per MWh = $65.60

There's nothing "damn cheap" about solar power.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

A universe in which we are measure the cost to accomplish a particular peak load.  Given the inability of solar to provide 24/7 power, the capital costs per Kwh will be higher because a solar plant will have fewer hours to recoup the investment.  However, in many areas, peak load occurs due to heavy AC use.  Since the conditions which cause the heaviest AC use also happen to be excellent ones for solar power, it is quite conceivable that solar would be useful as part of the mix, tho obviously as base load generating system it is still pricey.

From an energy company's decision-making perspective, how many hours it takes to recoup the investment is what is critical. The figures I provided were based on what the average price per MWh would have to be in order to recoup capital costs for investing in a given type of power plant. Energy companies put power online in order of increasing marginal cost; the cheapest power per MWh is their baseload. As demand increases, and by extension prices increase, they can start fulfilling demand with higher cost power. Energy Company X is not going to build a solar generating facility to satisfy the marginal peak load that only gets experienced occasionally unless it can sell that power at a price that provides a reasonable rate of return on their investments. The fact that people may use more power when it's sunny out doesn't factor into the picture; the fact that electricity spot prices are going to be a lot higher when it's 100 degrees out and sunny is what's going to factor into it.

But again, I am coming at this from the perspective of the Texas energy grid and the bizarre Rube Goldberg public-private-partnership that is the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). We've managed to create a situation where energy companies can make more money by not satisfying peak load, and where bureaucrats can claim their price caps are "protecting consumers" when all they're really doing is giving zero incentive to invest in new generating capacity.