Leaving this platform. Can't be a part of propagating the hate. This BS is the last straw for me. I will miss #energytwitter, it's been a good place to interact with a wide range of people. Hopefully another platform will come along. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

@cody_a_hill @spncjnks @duncan__c Storage is a *cost* for the use case of renewable integration. The goal should be to build the minimum necessary. (Storage "cost" for renewable integration should be understood as net of benefits from other use cases such as capacity deferral)

@ProfSecchi @Xeno_lith @DustinMulvaney Like most committees, the pelican committees definitely do not make any decisions. But they do spend hours in seeming debate about Very Important Topicks.

@DustinMulvaney @Xeno_lith @ProfSecchi They are only called a "squadron" when they are in the air. When they land they are called a "committee".

@xiaowang1984 From an article I published 10 years ago in Electricity Journal called "Chasing Grid Parity" that anticipated the declining marginal value of variable resources. Conclusion still stands that policy support is likely needed indefinitely to maintain market share growth.

@harphacker1 @Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence Depends on the purpose of the case study. Here we assumed smart charging for most transportation load and a small amount of DR. Could probably do more than we assumed, and it would most likely displace battery storage in the portfolio with a small cost savings.

@KnittelMIT @mitceepr @CGorback @irenejacqz @SchTim1 @JacquelynPless @JesseJenkins @Doreen_M_Harris @WildeEcon Such a great conference! Truly a privilege to have been invited to participate. Thank you!

@TwainsMustache @Ember421 @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence Second, nearly all markets have a capacity construct that provides compensation for this reliability service. So while gas rightly gets out-outcompeted in the energy market, it earns enough revenues in the capacity market to stay around or even build new plants.

@xiaowang1984 @Ember421 @TwainsMustache @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence Yeah there's an issue here for sure but NE is tied to the rest of the Eastern Interconnection so it will be able to go much farther than Eirgrid.

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence True but batteries help with that. And most markets have at least some amount of diversity in available wind. And if W&S are cheap you can keep building to get more production during shoulder hours even if you are curtailing at peak output. That's what most models are showing.

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence No but the 3 GW of existing nukes in NE don't go that far by 2050. The HQ imports help.

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence Depends on the circumstances but most studies are showing that with reasonable diversity 85-90% clean energy is possible with W, S & Li plus whatever existing nuke/hydro. Cost curve starts to climb though. Net Zero NE example:

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence Yes for the most past, NE probably the exception but that's due to politics on gas supply. W&S&NG driving coal out, good riddance, IRA fixing the issue for existing nukes which should get an equivalent subsidy for zero carbon emissions.

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence Agreed on those points, although (1) common cause failure risk is case-specific and not an issue for most plants, and (2) commodity gas cost is almost irrelevant for the price of *capacity*, which doesn't require much fuel combustion.

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence This is preventable by creating a mechanism that results in procurement of sufficient capacity to meet a reliability standard, e.g., the ISO organized capacity markets or utility IRPs. W&S don't make it any harder to meet that standard, in fact they help offset NG procurement.

@Ember421 @TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence If NG doesn't provide reliable capacity it shouldn't be paid like it does, right? And if W&S are already ahead of NG in the dispatch stack. But the reality is gas remains the cheapest capacity resource in most cases, and is compensated enough to stay online.

@xiaowang1984 @TwainsMustache @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence MOPR never really made sense because W&S *increase* the price of capacity at equilibrium by suppressing energy markets for thermal generators (and hence increasing net CONE). Not sure what "tax" the RTOs would impose and why.

@TwainsMustache @xiaowang1984 @WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence I'm honestly not sure what this means. W&S are being subsidized, but at the same time the carbon externality remains unpriced. What does "taxing the economics of reliability" mean? Firm resources have an opportunity to bid to supply resource adequacy capacity in most markets.

@WhettyFord @TheFrackingGuy @clawrence @TwainsMustache I was thinking of sub-hourly, where load variability is generally larger than W&S. Obv the diff between noon and sundown is large for solar, but easily predicted. Large wind drop events happen and must be accounted for in operations, but can also be predicted to some extent.