Wind power actually brings electricity prices down!
Wind power actually brings electricity prices down!
The Oil Drum’s Jerome a Paris writes:
Bloomberg has a somewhat confusing article about the newest complaint about wind power, but the gist of it is that wind power is an issue for the industry because it brings their revenues down:
After years of getting government incentives to install windmills, operators in Europe may have become their own worst enemy, reducing the total price paid for electricity in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, by as much as 5 billion euros some years, according to a study this week by Poeyry, a Helsinki-based industry consultant.
Implicit in the article, and the headline (which focuses on lower revenues for RWE) is the worry that wind power will bring down the stock market value of the big utilities – which is what the readers of Bloomberg et al. care about.
But despite the generally negative tone of the article, it’s actually a useful one, because it brings out in the open a key bit of information: wind power actually brings electricity prices down!
windmills (…) operators in Europe may have become their own worst enemy, reducing the total price paid for electricity in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, by as much as 5 billion euros some years
[snip]
The wind-energy boom in Europe and parts of Texas has begun to reduce bills for consumers.
[snip]
Spanish power prices fell an annual 26 percent in the first quarter because of the surge in supplies from wind and hydroelectric productionThis tidbit of information, which will hopefully begin to contradict the usual lies about the need for hefty subsidies for the wind sector, has been publicised by EWEA, the European Wind Energy Association in a report on the merit order effect (PDF). This is the name for what happens when you inject a lot of capital-intensive, low-marginal-cost supply into a marginalist price-setting market mechanism with low short term demand elasticity – or, in simpler words: when you have more wind, there is less need to pay to burn more gas to provide the requisite additional power at a given moment.
I’ve long argued that this was one of the strongest arguments for wind (see my article on The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind from last year), and I’ve pushed the EWEA people to use it more – so this study (which I was not involved in) is most welcome.
The key thing here is that we are beginning to unveil what I’ve labelled the dirty secret of wind: utilities don’t like wind not because it’s not competitive, but because it brings prices down for their existing assets, thus lowering their revenues and their profits…
Ironically, wind provides “utility-like” returns to investors, that is low, stable single-digit returns, as befits a regulated strategic infrastructure activity required for the common good…
Don’t think so. It’s likely conventional electric power is going up 50% (cost of carbon tax, cap&trade, or actually doing the tech mods to capture carbon). Wind is competitive, without subsidies, at that level. But keep in mind the limitations of solar and wind besides cost. They are intermittent sources, so they can supply peak power but are not reliable base load power.
Also, if Germany is so happy with all their windmills, and glut of power apparently per the oil drum article, why did Merkel include nuclear power in her election campaign platform? Nukes were never a popular thing in Germany.
Um, you really didn’t understand the Bloomberg article, did you?
I’m afraid I agree with CR. Without the subsidies, the high taxes on carbon-based utilities, and those same carbon-based utilities supplying base load wind does not lower power costs.
Denmark the poster child for wind relies on the core EU carbon-based plants to supply base load. Spain the sister to Danmark just or is about to announce the shut down of its Green subsidies for failure to provide the promised returns.
So another report from an industry-based group is just what we need to disprove the obvious. Seems a little desperate to make claims such as what they made in thr article.
If you go back and read the original Bloomberg article, it should be clear that this was not Germany’s finest showcase of German engineering. The Oil Drum article cherry picked a few parts he thought sounded good.
The gist I got was Germany built too many windmills, probably due to massive subsidies. The price dropped from too much supply, not lower cost. That means a loss for investment.
The article also says they only produce 30% of the time. So the glut is intermittent. And could happen in the middle of the night when you had planned on sleeping rather than trying to figure out ways to use cheap electricity.
They say the utilities don’t like it. No kidding. Base load plants have their cap costs amortized over 40 years and close to 24 by 7 operation, less scheduled downtime for maintenance. Now they have to take base load off line when the wind blows, and this screws up the whole cap structure of the utility. If wind was only used for peak power, they could plan better. But that would mean less windmills.
If you go back and read the original Bloomberg article, it should be clear that this was not Germany’s finest showcase of German engineering. The Oil Drum article cherry picked a few parts he thought sounded good.
The gist I got was Germany built too many windmills, probably due to massive subsidies. The price dropped from too much supply, not lower cost. That means a loss for investment.
The article also says they only produce 30% of the time. So the glut is intermittent. And could happen in the middle of the night when you had planned on sleeping rather than trying to figure out ways to use cheap electricity.
They say the utilities don’t like it. No kidding. Base load plants have their cap costs amortized over 40 years and close to 24 by 7 operation, less scheduled downtime for maintenance. Now they have to take base load off line when the wind blows, and this screws up the whole cap structure of the utility. If wind was only used for peak power, they could plan better. But that would mean less windmills.
If you go back and read the original Bloomberg article, it should be clear that this was not Germany’s finest showcase of German engineering. The Oil Drum article cherry picked a few parts he thought sounded good.
The gist I got was Germany built too many windmills, probably due to massive subsidies. The price dropped from too much supply, not lower cost. That means a loss for investment.
The article also says they only produce 30% of the time. So the glut is intermittent. And could happen in the middle of the night when you had planned on sleeping rather than trying to figure out ways to use cheap electricity.
They say the utilities don’t like it. No kidding. Base load plants have their cap costs amortized over 40 years and close to 24 by 7 operation, less scheduled downtime for maintenance. Now they have to take base load off line when the wind blows, and this screws up the whole cap structure of the utility. If wind was only used for peak power, they could plan better. But that would mean less windmills.
Once again, I only pushed the post button once. Really!
Actually the whole discussion overlooks the ideal model to minimize ghg, a combo of combined cycle gas turbine plants and solar/wind. The gas plants start up fast, and with the best ones running at 60% plus efficency produce minimum co2 per kwh out. Given the US situation with large amounts of gas, and the number of potential shales in europe, it combines well. Now this does make the model that was pushed by Enron ironically correct, generators sell power to distribution utilities no more vertical integeration. The two energy sources are an ideal match, being much cleaner than coal. If nuclear comes in at a reasonable price it can play also. Note that the day night swing is over 50% and if you look at TX the sun is brightest at the time of highest load 4 pm on a very hot summer day. If it is cloudy you have less load due to less sun load. Further north the situation may differ.
Lyle,
Absolutely correct, and it will take the Enron distribution model along with smart grid for the utilities to plan this well. And if we make CO2 reduction the top priority rather than cost, then it makes sense to run wind and solar at their max output whenever they provide it, and cycle down coal and nat gas plants. I believe base coal and nat gas can be cycled down to partial output rather than shutting them down completely. But there should be compensation given to the base load provider in this case because he incurred the cap cost to make the system reliable and able to deliver power when we need it.
The nice thing about the gas plants is that they can go from off to max in about 15 mins, whereas a coal or nuclear plant takes many hours to do that. In addition you can build in the right parts of the country (NW and E) pumped storage so that if you have surplus energy at night you pump water to the upper reservior and then let it fall down the hill again. There is such a plant in MO, MI and NC at least. This technique could be used at Grand Coulee as well as there is already a plant to pump water from the columbia to the upper res for irrigation.
Right, coming up with inexpensive and efficient enough electrical storage is a major plus. My guess is they may lose 30%. maybe more, with pumped storage. Have you seen any actual data on that approach?
Regula: There have been substantial advances in hydro efficiencies over the past 100 years, and even over the past 30. This is why re-powers of old hydro units are so common. 70% efficiency (including evaporation losses from the upper reservoir), is the low end of typical from old pumped storage plants. 80% would be the number I would plug for typical new construction. I understand that nearly 90% has been acheived at one re-power.
BTW, the price of wind is high for two reasons: Wind turbine prices are dramatically above costs, and project financing is over-costly. Both of these results are because our energy policy is a corporate wish list. If wind was built the way we built hydro (BPA, TVA, SRP), wind would be cheaper than fossil.
If you haven’t seen the below report it’s excellent.
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMP/reports/2008-wind-technologies.pdf
Wind grid integration is not close to being a problem, yet.
I’m thinking large motor effy at 93% for the trip up, can’t remember my large pump effy, , 93% for the generator on the way down, ignore pipe friction, ignore evaporation.
70% was sounding pretty good.
Really, really big motor efficiency is incredible. 500HP, 480V premium motor efficiencies are about 95% these days. When you’re talking about 200,000HP 15kv synchronous machines the electrical efficiency is almost negligible, it’s all mechanical.
One of the things that isn’t emphasized in the article is that the 7.5% grid penetration in Germany is country-wide, but the wind turbines aren’t uniformly distributed, so the penetration in the areas where they are talking about having problems is much higher. Nor do they mention that the grid id interconnected to Denmark, which has even higher penetration.
They have the same problem as Texas, they built the wind turbines where there is better wind and cheaper sites, and less load and less transmission, and they can’t move all of it to where the load is because they built the generation before the transmission. The article makes clear that this is not a case where there is more generation than load overall, it’s more generation than load in a lightly loaded region and less transmission than is needed to export it.
This is short term silliness.
In the Great Plains, where coal generation has had the same problem for years (more generation than load at night), they incentivize electric heat and pumping demand response. This is not a problem (balancing load and gen) that is wind-specific. Wind can Reg-down if it needs to, it just typically doesn’t right now for policy reasons.
You should be able to delete the extra copies when the universe conspires to multiply your posts. But this being JS-Kit there is no certainty.
***The nice thing about the gas plants is that they can go from off to max in about 15 mins,***
Yes, but somebody somewhere pointed out (it’d take me all morning), the gas plants are designed for a target number of startups over their lifetime. If you try to run your power grid in a fashion that requires many more starts and stops, the gas plants are going to require a lot of additional maintenance that needs to be factored into cost computations.
***In addition you can build in the right parts of the country (NW and E) pumped storage so that if you have surplus energy at night you pump water to the upper reservior and then let it fall down the hill again.***
On paper, the the US has something like 19GW of pumped storage capacity–much of which is not used. However, you lose something like 30% of the power that is “stored” to losses in transmission, pumping, evaporation, reservoir leakage, and regeneration. I believe that current usage to pump water at low night time rates and generate at peak rates. That may be an economic success, but it is a pretty ineffective way “store energy”.
***80% would be the number I would plug for typical new construction.***
That almost certainly does not include transmission losses getting power to and from the pumped storage facilities, and I’ll bet it leaves out other things as well. I think 70% is the number one should use for planning.
======
Also, if the pumped storage facility is also used to generate baseline power, and the generation capacity isn’t augmented when pumping is added, the baseline load capacity of the facility doesn’t change although its reserve of future available power does.
======
Probably sounds like I’m anti-wind. Not at all. I’m guessing that we can expand wind (and solar) generation in the US by a factor of 10 or 20 before the intermittent and not terribly reliable nature of wind (and to some extent solar) becomes a problem.
But I think we are going to have to upgrade the power grid substantially at some point if we do that.
Taking into account evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and conversion losses, approximately 70% to 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_hydro
is there a downside to losing 15 to 30% of your wind-generated power?
this solution is especially applicable to the great lakes, and the east & west coasts, where the water supply is virtually limitless…
***This is short term silliness.***
Not at all. It’d be equally silly to build the transmission capability without proofing the generation capaibilty. What’s really happening is that the wind generation is working well — something that was by no means a given. Now that they have the proven power and enough of a record to be sure they can continue to have power to deliver, they can work on getting the power out as cheaply as possible.
***Implicit in the article, and the headline (which focuses on lower revenues for RWE) is the worry that wind power will bring down the stock market value of the big utilities – which is what the readers of Bloomberg et al. care about.***
I think that any concern that renewable power sources are going to put utilities under significant long term financial stress is probably misplaced. It’s kind of like being worried that the Navajo will go on the war path and drive the gringos out of the Southwest.
***I’m afraid I agree with CR. Without the subsidies, the high taxes on carbon-based utilities, and those same carbon-based utilities supplying base load wind does not lower power costs. ***
Care to cite some credible references for that? I believe the case is that hydro is mostly government generated (70+ %) and is not highly taxed. Oil simply isn’t used for power generation. Natural gas is not highly taxed (e.g. 7.5% in Texas). Coal isn’t taxed at anywhere near the levels it ought to be taxed at considering its pollution capability. And don’t overlook depletion allowances when looking at federal taxes on gas and coal.
***Also, if Germany is so happy with all their windmills, and glut of power apparently per the oil drum article, why did Merkel include nuclear power in her election campaign platform? Nukes were never a popular thing in Germany.***
Presumably because nuclear has very high availability For the most part, it is there when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Germany has essentially no domestic oil and only very modest domestic natural gas supplies. So for them, nuclear is probably their best bet for reliable domestically produced baseline load power.
VT,
Once again your right on the money. Nuclear is really Germany’s only clean energy source, and I believe germany only has coal as a source of energy after that (I think).
Islam will change
Except it makes a big difference on who the “they” is. If you bought an IPO or limited partneship in a windfarm project you are in big trouble. If you are a utility who has sold bonds to cover construction costs for base load and find out 30% of your revenue disappeared to a different windmill company, you are going to need a rate increase.
Or as Benamary pointed out, if the TVA does everything, finances and rollout timing don’t matter.
well, i would add
that nuclear has a well funded lobby. put a little hysteria into the public debate and a technology that was not considered safe enough suddenly becomes the “only clean energy source.”
frankly, i think we could tap a huge source of clean energy just by turning off the lights in Las Vegas.
***that nuclear has a well funded lobby. put a little hysteria into the public debate and a technology that was not considered safe enough suddenly becomes the “only clean energy source.”***
We need a certain amount of energy to support six billion plus humans — certainly more than wind and/or hydro can provide and I suspect more than solar can provide. Nuclear is something we know how to do that doesn’t generate greenhouse gases and has relatively abundant fuel. My feeling. Given current technology nuclear is better than coal and we really don’t have the option of neither.
***frankly, i think we could tap a huge source of clean energy just by turning off the lights in Las Vegas.***
And the damn fountains as well. One spectacular monument to excess should be enough for any planet and IMO, the proper place for that monument is Dubai.
“We need a certain amount of energy to support six billion plus humans — certainly more than wind and/or hydro can provide and I suspect more than solar can provide. “
Actually the amount of solar energy that hits the earth in one HOUR over N Africa is enough to power the entire PLANET for a year. The problem is how do we harness it. We solved the problem of how to harness the energy of an atom in relatively short time in the 40s, I htink a Manhattan project type effort might make a HUGE dent in solving the “solar energy capture and transport problem”. Lets accurately define the problem. Its not that the sun doesnt provide us with the energy.
No downside, you just have to charge for it. And also have all the real estate that windfarms take up. (In CA they have been complaining they chop up American Eagles, but we won’t worry about that.)
Nuclear didn’t get safe all of a sudden. They have been hard at work on “generation 3” designs. They are supposedly much more fail safe and fuel efficiency is also greatly improved so that the waste disposal problem is reduced.
Waste disposal still needs to be addressed. They keep kicking that can down the road. Yucca Mountain is in limbo again.
every power solution takes real estate. ever been to west virginia where mountaintops are removed for coal?
mining is energy intensive…consumes imported oil…
and there even losses transmission: Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [13] and 6.5% in 2007[14]. In general, losses are estimated from the discrepancy between energy produced (as reported by power plants) and energy sold to end customers; the difference between what is produced and what is consumed constitute transmission and distribution losses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
im aware there is no perfect solution; but i think offshore wind farms combined with pumped hydro should be part of the picture…
In the case of wind assume that there is more generation available than transmission and or load to serve it. Either you pump water or you turn the generator off. The power is essentially free at that point on the spot market because no one wants it. Actually there is another possibility that may come about. Assume you take the batteries of a electric car, ditch the care and put them in a box in the home. Control when it takes energy in and when it puts energy out to shave the peaks in demand. If and when the time sensitive part of the smart grid tarrifs come about this will make sense. (Its not really new, in the 1920s people had large hot water tanks that heated from 10pm to 5 am and were off the rest of the day). We can just make things smarter.
Just like on another topic, assume you live in the south and have a swimming pool. Why not put the waste heat from the a/c into the pool. Today you can do air sourced heat pumps for pools, but no one yet has the pool heat for waste heat solution. (The pool heat solution is sort of a special case of a ground source heat pump. )
Perhaps Ken Lay has re-incarnated and is pushing his deregulation. If you went for the seperate distribution and generation model, then its the generators that have the problem, not the distributors. So now the economics very much depend on the model for the structure of the electric utility in the state. In TX for example Florida Power and Light put in a private (no eminent domain) power line between the San Antonio Area and the Abiline(Sweetwater) area. This line is paid for by the generators, and has enabled about 1 to 2 gw more of wind power to go to use than before. In TX generation is unbundled from distribution in investor owned areas.
Once you unbundle then its the generators not the distribution co that is bearing the risk.
A new offshore windfarm was just approved off Cape Cod. Takes up 25 square miles of ocean for 183 MWe, just to give an idea of how much space we are talking. So they will be built far from expensive metro areas, and yes, there are transmission line losses, and new lines need to be built.
are there any nuke or coal generating plants in the area of those expensive
metro areas near cape cod? where does boston get their power from now? if
im not mistaken, some of it is wheeled in the from ontario hydro, with
significant voltage drop in the power line corona on the way there..(ie,
hold up a 4 foot 40 watt florescent tube under one of those 500KV lines and
it will light up…)
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Echo <
js-kit-m2c-UNKPUINH6VQDAGOPLBKKMBPRG5JJAFEKOCTEATMIPNNITA4C45IG@reply.js-kit.com
Actually for the northeast a large amount of the power comes from Churchill Falls in Labradour, down thru Quebec. The lines run from the falls to Quebec City and Montreal. Churchill falls has a capacity of 5.4 GW.
Let me add another source in Quebec the James bay project which provides 16.5 gw as well. So for the summer this is where a lot of the northeasts power comes from. (Since Quebec does not need a lot of AC in the summer.
the electricity on the national grid is fungible and interconnected with
canada’s; so wherever the is excess baseload or hydro, the power will be
wheeled to the areas where there there is demand…that why the failure in a
plant on lake erie reversed the flow around the lake, caused a 345KV
powerline east of cleveland to overheat,droop and contact a ground, and thus
caused the 2003 cascading power outage from detroit to toronto and new york
city…
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Echo <
js-kit-m2c-UNKPUINH6VQDAGOPLBKKMBPRG5I6HRIO1P78D6ANKUU9876139EG@reply.js-kit.com
A very informative thread, and one from which I have learned a lot. I need three posts on energy…any takers.?
Equally silly, the transmission before the generation. This is the route California has gone for this wind boom cycle (See my link to Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, i.e. TRiTiP). They did it the other way last time (wind before transmission) and paid curtailment charges on must-take PURPA QF Wind for 20 years.
Do you have particular topics in mind?
Of course, transmission capacity does not mandate a particular generation technology. If wind didn’t pan out, I’m sure that (in Texas) a gas plant could take advantage of the cheap line capacity and inexpensive real estate and low population density (fewer NIMBYists).
Output isn’t 100% or zero% — a wind turbine with 30% capacity factor (which BTW is well below average for the U.S.) is producing most of the time, it just isn’t producing at full output. This is why adding wind to the grid actually does increase probabalistic generation capacity reserve. It typically is something like 15-20% capacity credit… i.e. the odds that it’s producing times the likely production level at the time when max capacity is likely to be needed and a large contingency of conventional generation or transmission is likely to occur. This value is somewhere between wind purveyors claims, and the “100% backup” of naysayers.
On storage, simply NOT producing with conventional hydro is equivalent to storage. In a grid with lots of conventional hydro (Scandinavia), that’s nearly 100% efficient storage. In practice, limited transmission means cogens in Denmark get curtailed as well as hydro in Norway, which is horribly INefficient.
I can cobble something together, but will need some time to go back and find all the supporting links to stuff that I’ve squirreled away in my head so that it is post quality rather than just comment quality.
Different windmill designs have different specs of course. But one spec I saw had rated output at 15mph windspeed and reduced output down to 9 mph, then it does go to zero below that. So it depends a lot on wind conditions in a particular area.
That actually sounds like a turbine designed for LOW wind speed. The places they put commercial scale turbines are VERY windy by normal standards of personal experience. Yes, the wind has to blow hard(fast) to make much power. I have seen numbers from 8% to 35% as the reserve capacity contribution of a given wind project in a given control area. The two biggest variables are the correlation between the area load profile and area wind profile (both hourly and seasonally) and the capacity factor of the wind (somewhere between 20 and 55%–usually around 40% or so in U.S.).
We actually should upgrade the transmission grid substantially even without new wind generation. We have effectively had negative transmission investment since the 70’s in the U.S.. A true national grid would save energy and money, before a dime was invested in additional generation. Think “time zones” and peak capacity.
That said: if wind is peaking when load is not, that means current flow to the pumped storage facility will occur when the grid is lightly loaded (except the bits actually dedicated to the respective facilities); otherwise the wind gen will just be used directly and a shoulder-peak or peaker plant would back-off. Since most losses are proportional to the square of current, losses off-peak are typically trivial. That leaves the flow from the pumped storage to the load AT peak. This is equaled by the counterfactual flow from the peaker plant to the load AT peak which no longer occurs. The ADDITIONAL transmission losses are likely substantially less than the 8% or so average. Let’s call it less than 3% (straight up assuming 50% system loading would drop it to 2% from 8%). This is obviously subject to a great deal of site specificity.
If you build nuclear you’re going to need a LOT OF BACKUP! That’s right. It’s an argument you normally hear (often incorrectly) for renewables. However, nearly all of the pumped storage in the U.S. was built for nuclear plants. The trouble with all the people who are obsessed with the supposed problem of intermittancy and literally worship baseload power is that slow start up and shutdown time for nuclear plants, combined with a very narrow operating range, mean that it seldom is producing power when needed or in the right amounts. So, much of the time, nukes are just pumping water. They also weren’t designed for any kind of CHP in the U.S., so the cooling “solutions” have been to build plants that take in the entire volume of the Delware river several times per day and kill millions of fish per year, in addition to destroying their eggs, and pretty much single handed driving some species into extinction. But, hey, that’s an “external cost” that the nuke industry doesn’t have to pay. All they care about is low operating costs, though that doesn’t translate into low rates for consumers, who pay the highest rates in the nation in the areas with the most nuclear power.
The real solution for intermittent renewables is a combination of flexible generation, markets, and storage. Renewable should be operated at maximum when available and then have rapid switching (which costs about $0.001/kWh) to the more dispatchable sources, like gas and coal, which can be throttled up and down to meet demand. Coal has not been as amenable, at least in the past, to throttling, and it is by far the dirtiest power we have. So, it should rapidly become less of our power solution. However, a sometimes overlooked part of the solution is the federal hydropower system. Hydro actually has the fastest ramp rate of any technology, so many power planners need to get their heads out of the 1970s and stop thinking of only fossil fuels as being dispatchable. If the hydro system were used rationally, instead of politically, it could be turned over to what it can do best peaking and storage of power. Yet, although it was built at great tax payer expense, it often times is treated as the private property of small, rural communities, who just want cheap subsidized power and lots of cheap subsidized water for agriculture. These little communities get great benefit from the government, inspite of the fact that they are also the places where most of the anti-government right wing nuts live. Perhaps as more of the nuke plants are retired, and certainly should be, more of the pumped storage built for them will also become available to support system flexibility and actual clean power sources. And don’t worry baseload worshippers, there are plenty of baseload renewable solutions, including enhanced geothermal, which I understand Germany was pursuing big time, if Merkle hasn’t killed it. Various biomass solutions like landfill gas, anaerobic digestor gas, and forest thinnings are really no brainers, since if we don’t utilize these sources, they will generate far more GHGs and wastes and fire hazards that if we just take simple actions to utilize the resources and get cheap clean power as a by-product. Small hydro, microhydo, hydrokinetic and wave power are other solutions to provide cheap, reliable, fairly constant power. So, there is really no need to rush out and buy a nuclear boondoogle, like Progress Energy Florida’s latest proposal for a 2 GW nuclear plant that they say will only cost a mere $17 billion.
Hey Family!
Just wanted totnhz6m7 write yofni5u, and let yoxel5fnu knoho5elkiw, hows7kdmw the deg7u9wree pro90elels93gram I tried otelut went.
Well, six weeks later, I graduated, finished & received my Masters Degrocee with nonnw79 study required and %100 verifiable.
Yeah mobfm, I kno5bw yorv1ku and Dad doel97o4kh7ubted it at first, but this turned oa8dzhswut to8ig be %100 legit. This ovuel1wpponcrtunity was given toyf me because o0bix03f the prown6qfessio13nal experience and previoruus co7curse wohelrk I had accumulated.
I�m socfy excited mo5nm and dad, this was a life altering ob5ppoif4rtunity & fotkzbr o142dkwyvnce in my life I toselrpoyycqk advantage opohza6f it.
I already have joqfjv11nbs, that wof8kuldn�t have given me a chance befocn0dv3sre, no4vw they are calling oxwk2ff the hokaoh2rayf1zk! This really is a goxp1f0yymdsend.
Tell Susan and Comrhxo6usin Jozelcpdfpey that they better hurry up and call that # I gave them the oel81jther day.
Again these are the degreelyfges they ophffer, BA, BSC, MA, MSu0ocftzC, Mtts5BA and PhraD, and the number totww call is 1-801-461-5023, tell them tojeljfx leave a brief message with their name, the deg4fqree they are interested in and their day and evening pho0a4ooo3ne numbers. They will copiqcntact yo00g65xxu sovizojmmel93jbn after,
Anyway, much lom5elwovkrve, and tell the rest owkbaelf the family I said hellom9f
Loz5gzqy5kve,
Yo5ggqhur so0qkn,
Jockspfbnrhn
P.s.
Mozynk84wm, why dos3cn�t yoeli3u send this email tox0wel a few o3pelnqf yomvur friends? My pro3au94qfesso6r0o6rpr too0rld me that if we send ok7rdv4ver referrals the schofxk9mawoan5obzl can give us a schobkglarship.
Univ ko ersity De ffj gree
OBTAIN A PROSPEROUS FUTURE, MO mss NEY-EARNING POWER,
AND THE PRESTIGE THAT COMES WITH HAVING THE CA hwn REER POSITION
YOU HAVE ALWAYS DREAMED OF. DI txt PLOMA FROM PRESTIGIOUS
NON-ACCRE kh DITED UN drd VERSITIES BASED ON YOUR PRESENT KNO fw WLEDGE
AND PR vo OFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.
If you qua trj lify, no required tests, classes, books or exa vjc minations.
Con bst fidentiality Assured
+ 1 – 6 bk 46 – 5 qzk 37 – 17 lfh 32Le xz ave a mes il sage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week incl ln uding Sundays and Holidays
There is never anything newsworthy about your life… but that all can be changed!
Are you spending your life running errands for people?
That all can be changed also!
We offer 100% verified Degree: Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate (PHD).
We are an experienced company and our professionals will answer to any your questions and suggest you the best choice!
Take your chance and contact us.
Order your diploma and in four-six weeks you are graduated!
No university, no classes, no teachers, books and exams.