Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
“Between wind and water: (Nautical) In that part of a ship’s side or bottom which is frequently brought above water by the rolling of the ship, or fluctuation of the water’s surface. Hence, colloquially, (as an injury to that part of a vessel, in an engagement, is particularly dangerous) the vulnerable part or point of anything.”
Forcing people to buy expensive renewable energy seems like a really bad plan to me. But that’s what California is doing. It used to be capped at 20%, but the new law is that we’ll have to get 33% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. But that’s not bad enough. Here’s the goofy part, the part that makes it uniquely Californian, that marks it as being from the famous “Granola State”, home of nuts and flakes …
Because of the regulations requiring California to use renewable energy, it won’t be able to use all its renewable energy, and will have to throw part of the energy away.
I must confess to a great fondness for the law of unintended consequences. It involves us in situations of delicious irony all the time. You see, here in California, in order to be “renewable”, it’s not enough that power be hydroelectric. This is California, and we require better green credentials than the fact that hydroelectric is renewable to declare it “renewable”. You might think I’m kidding. Unfortunately, I’m not. Here is the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) report for the energy mix on Monday the 11th of April 2011:
Figure 1. Where California gets its electricity. Note that the top section, “Hydro[electric]”, is not counted with the “Renewables”.
Under the law requiring 33% renewables, any large-scale hydroelectric plant is not considered “renewable”. What the law calls “renewables” were about 15% of the total in 2009, and hydroelectricity was about 20%. So in fact, in California we are already getting 33% of our power from renewable sources … but that’s not good enough for the nuts and flakes, who could have guessed? Under the goofball definition in the law, most of our renewable energy doesn’t count as renewable energy. Figure 2 shows what’s included in the California so-called “Renewables” mix:
Figure 2. Renewable energy generation in California, 11 April 2011
So from the bottom up we have geothermal, biomass, biogas, small hydroelectric, wind, and solar … but no regular old, boring, and definitely renewable hydroelectric power.
Here’s one of the problems with this nonsense, from the Seattle Times :
Wind-power producers fight possible shutdown of turbines
PORTLAND — Pacific Northwest wind-power producers are battling a proposal that could force them to periodically shut down their plants in the months ahead, potentially costing them millions of dollars in lost revenue.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) officials say that limiting wind production could be required to free up space in the regional transmission system to handle hydropower generated from the melt-off of a huge mountain snowpack this year.
“We’re looking at doing everything we can to avoid the shutdowns but you have to be able to do something when your back is against the wall,” said Doug Johnson, a BPA spokesman.
… The BPA manages the regional power-supply system by balancing, minute by minute, the flow of electricity surging through the system with demand.
As the wind industry expands, the BPA has found it more difficult to transmit all that power and still meet other responsibilities, which include selling hydro power outside the region and spilling water over dams to aid the passage of migrating salmon.
Last June, the BPA balancing effort turned into a high-wire act as a late snow melt unleashed a gusher of water down the Columbia River at the same time that winds whipped up the power turbines.
BPA officials said that they couldn’t divert all the water around the hydroelectric turbines without putting too much dissolved gas into the river and placing salmon at risk. So they ended up running more water through the dam turbines and giving away their surplus power to utilities all over the West.
That spurred the agency to develop a new proposal to periodically shut down wind-power farms to help balance loads. The plan was embraced by public utilities across the region.
Why does this matter to consumers in California like myself? Because like idiots, we’re contracted to use the windpower despite the high costs of both production and transmission (emphasis mine) …
The dispute reflects major strains on the regional power system, which has been reshaped by a dramatic expansion of wind power in Washington and Oregon. Most of that power is exported to California and other markets outside the Northwest.
Of course, since regional planners all bought into the “we’ll never ever see winter again” mantra sold by the AGW alarmists, nobody was planning for a winter like this one. There was 61 feet of snow at some points in the Sierras, the reservoirs are full and over, we’re going to have more than enough water to generate plenty of power.
But none of that waterpower, not a drop, counts towards the California 33% renewables quota. So despite having already reached the 2020 goal of 33% renewables, here we are “between wind and water”. The utilities will all have to buy expensive wind power in preference to cheap water power … and then we can’t just release the water because it’s low in oxygen and will harm the fish, so then we’ll have to generate the power anyway and give the power away … that’s hell of a resource-management and conservation plan there, guys. Gotta love California.
w.
References:
Anthony’s previous post on this subject
CAISO Historical Daily Data (1 year)
Latest California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Report
CA Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
@Oldseadog: Sounds like Enron to me…
Willis,
I don’t want anyone to think that Washington state is somehow ‘smarter’ than California. In WA, we also do not count ‘hydroelectric’ energy generation as ‘renewable’. Man made dams are ‘bad’, therefore the electricity generated from falling water can not be counted as ‘renewable’ or ‘green’. Our ‘green agenda’ democrat controlled legislatures’ solution to excess generation capacity, when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, is to GIVE AWAY the excess hydro capacity to other states. Does this generosity in anyway provide for energy cost reductions to the WA consumer? Nooooooooooo….
Consider that, if Washington state gave its surplus electrical capacity to California at ‘no charge’, the Wizards Of Green (WOGs) would require California to throw that ‘free’ electricity away also, while continuing to generate and sell the extremely expensive but unreliable ‘green’ energy to it’s beleaguered customers.
It goes beyond ‘dumb and dumber’ It is criminally insane…. and the mental disease is spreading.
I wouldn’t trust anything published in the Seattle Times. The greenies hate Hydro and will go to any length to make it look bad. Even if some of the events alluded to in the story are factual, the propagandist most likely go so much wrong that it bears very little relationship to reality. I can almost here them now, “Its soooo unfair that those greedy Hydro exploiters are producing electricity more reliably and cheaper then the conscientious Wind developers.”
Sully says:
April 14, 2011 at 12:46 pm
California is sure a good neighbor.
Unfortunatly not true. Oregon politicians not only import whacky enviro ideas from CA but try and one up them.
According to our local paper, The Austin American Statesman, California sent a fact finding delegation to Austin Texas yesterday to try and understand why businesses are fleeing from California to Texas. I’m assuming they all piled into a Prius and spent six days riving down here in an eco-friendly fashion, but couldn’t they get the answer by simply sitting at home and reading WUWT? Of course, you do need electricity to use the internet.
I mean seriously, they don’t know what the problem is?
Duke C. says: April 14, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“The Calico Solar Project (owned by Tessera Energy) was approved last November after years of planning and litigation. Out of the blue, Edison canceled the purchase agreement, leaving the project in shambles. Edison gave no reason, other than they would be violating non-disclosure agreements.”
Duke:
Here’s a press release from Tessera that partially explains it:
http://www.tesserasolar.com/north-america/press.htm
It’s a .pdf, so I can’t cut and paste pieces of it, but go to the Dec 16 release. It says that a Federal Judge granted an injunction because a local Indian community was “insufficiently consulted”
This is particularly disappointing because Tessera’s technology is the only solar thermal process that doesn’t use much water. All the other big solar projects, like Google’s well funded BrightSource, use lots of water in the desert where water is scarce.
Similar to Queensland and its desalination plants which were to prepare for prolonged droughts caused by global warming. Then reality hit! Dams were also full to overflowing. Perhaps governments are preparing for the wrong things (UK lack of salting grit.)
Eschenbach wrote: “…. It used to be capped at 20%, but the new law is that we’ll have to get 33% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. ” when he should have written ‘…of our electricity…,’ as there is a greater consumtion of oil and non electric NG than electricity:
http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_flow.html
That reminds me of other misuses of the word ‘energy’ when folks say ‘energy tax’ when they should say ‘carbon tax.’
The bill also states “..(C) The electrical corporation will shall
first meet its unmet resource needs through all available
energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost
effective, reliable, and feasible….”
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_23_bill_20101206_introduced.html
and there is plenty of untapped efficiency, which reduces the need for part of the 33% renewables like windpower etc.
He disparages wind power but neglects solar electric generation.
They are assuming that because of global warming there will no longer be any water left to run the hydro /sarcasm…i think
oatley says:
April 14, 2011 at 12:51 pm
For an added insight, add a line to the graph showing the hourly DEMAND for electricity. Uh-oh.
=============================
Exactly. The graphs are meaningless until they’re matched to demand. Figure one tells me that they’re already dumping electricity. The production curve should match the demand curve. It doesn’t. But then, if you rely on the “renewable” energy, it will never. Even though figure 2 comes a lot closer to a typical demand curve than figure 1.
Barry L. says:
April 14, 2011 at 12:31 pm
It’s not a continuous record, Barry. It’s 24 on-the-hour readings.
It’s different every day, depending on the weather, and the choices made by the people running the grid. Remember that this is actual hour-by-hour feed-in to the grid, not theoretical availability.
Hope that clears it up,
w.
Bob Maginnis says:
April 14, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Thanks, Bob, I’ll fix that. My intention was clear … to me, but my words, not so much.
w.
Under the law requiring 33% renewables, any large-scale hydroelectric plant is not considered “renewable”.
Yup – energy from the Sun propels water molecules into the atmosphere and, as we know, what goes up must come down (all the way back to Sea level) . Some might believe that the process is sustainable … but then again nobody scams much out of that particular system now do they?
When trying to decipher “sustainability” you must read Agenda 21. The object is not to replace “dirty” energy by “clean” energy… it is to reduce all energy consumption full stop, from whatever source. That is to say that the worst nightmare of the “sustainability” activist is that (apart from taxes drying up) Fusion reactors (or any other cheap energy source) might actually come to pass.
If we imagine that some bright spark comes up with a “clean” and limitless (hence cheap) energy source in the morning, it will kill the “sustainability” agenda dead in its tracks. Little green books will be hidden away and life will move on.
Willis… if you want to see what your “sustainability” global communist has in mind then take a quick tour of the UK. For a $30,000 per year drone, here is his week…
Monday – 20% (PAYE) income tax (Monday gone)
Tuesday – 20% VAT given that I spend most of what I earn.(Tuesday gone)
Wednesday – Council(local taxes) Tax added to (essentials tax) Water, Gas, Electricity blah.. blah…(Wednesday gone)
Thursday – National insurance , car taxes (including fuel), Cigarettes, Alcohol …..
Licences and all the other bullshit. (Thursday gone)
And …. (drum roll) … Friday … Carbon Dioxide taxes to save mother nature (Friday gone)
So for the five days I worked …. The “sustainable” Communist Anthill
that is “Europe ” takes about 90% of my life for itself (think CalTrans) . You may well detest Californian Bullshit but please spare a thought those who need large calibre weapons shipping out here whenever the US is willing to take a stand on the matter.
I have no idea who the current “EU President” is and that should tell you Americans all you need to know about “sustainable” Europe. Free speech is fine but please send us guns and ammunition.
Duke C.
See comment by oldseadog above. He is dead on and this is why this mandate is essentially an non-issue.
California utilities have made billions working around these regulatory handicaps for decades and have always been a few chess moves ahead of the politicians. As vboring also notes, all that is needed here is a transmission line or two to pull electricity from the Northern grids. It doesn’t matter if the majority of electricity on those grids is produced by “non-renewable” hydro. As long as our utilities pay the appropriate indulgences to the wind farm operators on the grids, the regulatory obligations are met.
SoCal Edison doesn’t need to stick their neck out subsidizing in California speculative solar plants.
Hydro – reliable – therefore “non Renewable”.
Obvious in retrospect.
I can just enjoy the schadenfreude at having 33% of CA power being wierd unreliable power and the effect that will have on your Grid and power costs. Never mind the environmental effects of Hydro plants being the on-demand stand-by – make up sources- their logical use in this scenario, that suddenly have to open the gates wide or shut them tight to generate/stop generating power and your “green” power fluctuates.
I can see the pulses of water down stream killing fish, people and generally wreaking havoc.
I so hate stupidity.
I thought it was “fruits and nuts,” or is that too provocative?
It could also be “dopers and dopes.” Or “jerks and shirks, but no works.”
All of these apply.
DesertYote says:
April 14, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I wouldn’t trust anything published in the Seattle Times.
BPA gave away for free 73,000 MWh and ended up spilling another 745,000 MWh.
In addition Columbia Generating Station was throttled back. All the while, California Tax Payers were paying to subsidize windmills when they could have had 745,000 MWh of electricity for ‘free’. In the meantime, California Utilities have added another 1,000 MW of subsidized windmills in Oregon and Washington.
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/AgencyTopics/ColumbiaRiverHighWaterMgmnt/Draft%20ROD%20ERNP.pdf
Steve says:
April 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Thanks, Steve. I have yet to see figures that a dam built to best practice (clear out and sell the trees/brush before the dam is built) in the temperate zones will significantly increase methane production. Yes, dams in the tropics do produce methane. But in the temperate zone I haven’t found any evidence of that being a problem.
A study here gives emission rates for CO2 and CH4 (methane) for some northern lakes. When I apply those figures to Lake Shasta in northern California (10,000 hectares, a very large lake) I get the following emissions per year:
Methane: 307 kg (674 pounds)
Carbon Dioxide: 35 tonnes
Now, it’s about ten kg of CO2 for every gallon of diesel burned. Thirty five tonnes of CO2 is about the amount released from burning 3,500 gallons of diesel … and for that plus less than a thousand pounds of methane released per year, we’re going to stop building dams that produce megawatts of clean, renewable power??? Stoooopid …
(The dams are already a joke, see here for how dam opponents are funding dam construction.)
I’m doing my best to educate them …
w.
James Sexton says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Look, I gave you the CAISO website. The graphs are theirs, not mine. All of that information you are asking for and more is on the website. Stop busting me for not spoon-feeding you, and go out foraging for yourselves. I’ve done my part, now you do yours.
w.
jeez says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm
A “transmission line or two”? Dude, that is hilarious. You little realize what a hornets nest that is out here. Consider that you have to condemn an easement across someone’s private property for every mile of line to be built, and that under the well-known California “Two-for-One” rule, for every one mile of transmission line there will be at least two nutjobs that will sue to stop the project. Then you’ll have further lawsuits from everyone from Greenpeace to the Organic Tinfoil Hat Brigade because of the dreaded electromagnetic fields that will be produced by the electricity, and in any case when you’re almost done the Legislature will make the project illegal in order to protect the endangered Pants Fly … haha, “CWA” as we say around here, “California Wins Again”, it’s the land where nothing can ever be built in anyone’s backyard.
w.
PS – While the utilities may “work around these regulatory handicaps” as you say, the result is ever-increasing prices for my electricity. That’s not really a workaround on my planet …
Hi Willis, my comment is only indirectly related to the subject of this article, in that it does involve wind and water, but not as a renewable energy source but as a governor of global climates. I’m referring to your “Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis” presented at The Heartland Institute’s 4th International Conference on Climate Change last year.
I have placed a comment about your presentation on Judith Curry’s “Physics of the Atmospheric? Greenhouse Effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-61567) and wonder if you’ll be popping back there to respond.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
[Done, see my reply there – w.]
PRIMAL SCREAM!!!!
Someone mentioned above that California might be a nice place to visit. I believe it was the first comment. From the sounds of things, one had better do it quickly, because there might not be anything worth visiting at the present rate of wackiness-change, which, it appears, is much worse than originally thought. Makes one pine for the Governator.
What California needs is a crash investment program in artificial intelligence. We are severely lacking in the natural sort.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:42 pm
James Sexton says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm
oatley says:
April 14, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“Exactly. The graphs are meaningless until they’re matched to demand……..”
——————————————————————
“Look, I gave you the CAISO website. ………Stop busting me for not spoon-feeding you, and go out foraging for yourselves.”
====================================================
Willis, because you live in a state full of nutjobs, I understand it would tend to make a person a bit hypersensitive. While I can’t speak for “oatly”, I can say my comment wasn’t intended as a criticism but rather an observation and to give others another view to consider. You can think of it as a compliment to your post, if you wish. While I fully intend to seek such information, alas, time doesn’t allow for it, at this moment. I’ve a more pressing research project that I’m involved with. It is the study of the calculus and trigonometry of spheres on a plane that has reflective properties on its borders and the effects humans can have on such with various ETOH levels. I’ve a few theories I intend to test shortly.
Again, sorry if your feelings were hurt. It wasn’t intended. Maybe I’ll send you guys information I found for a follow-up.
Cheers,
James