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)
Mike says:
April 14, 2011 at 8:33 pm
“I don’t understand why everyone feels that this system is incorrect. The goal is not to reach the number 33%, the goal is to increase the states generation of electricity from renewable sources.”
Let me give you the bottom line that Europe has demonstrated and where the true costs are not hidden by “back door” subsidies which the consumer pays, one way or the other:
1) Current wholesale price of the current mix of U.S. electric power generation is under 4.5 (U.S.) cents per Kwh
2) European cost of on-shore wind is 12 (U.S.) cents per Kwh at the plant fence.
3) European cost of off-shore wind is 20 (U.S.) cents per Kwh (and getting few takers at that price).
4) European cost of large-scale, photovoltaic solar is 50 (U.S.) cents per Kwh (and they’ve paid as much as 58.5 (U.S.) cents per Kwh. When Spain, “the solar capital of the world” and now technically bankrupt, abrogated some of those solar contracts and unilaterally dropped the paid price to 4o (U.S.) cents per Kwh, solar plant owners could not service their financing agreements and went into default with their bankers. Now there is a bankers class action suit underway against the government of Spain. Note also that Portugal, which had challenged Spain’s self-proclaimed solar title with its own solar program, is also not just technically but officially bankrupt.
This is the legacy Governor Moonbeam and his gang of Sacramento “politico correctos” are fostering on The Golden State.
Gaia clearly has a sense of humour
Willis,
This the latest EIA (2008)estimate of the renewable contribution;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/california.html
The renewable generation with big hydro is 23.5% of the total. Big hydro is 11.5% and wind and solae are only 2.9%.
To get to 33% without geothermal they will need to increase wind and solar from 2.9% to 12.4% which is my opinion impossible.
I agree, 2.9% to 12.4% is quite big leap. It’s not completely impossible but…
Willis,
Sorry, been working away from computer.
I understand how difficult it is to build new transmission lines, but I would think it would be easier than defying the laws of physics to make wind power work.
However, I will admit I wasn’t thinking clearly. Under our current system it appears that who you pay the money to is all that matters. Supermarkets in my neighborhood brag of being 100% wind powered, yet they are on the same grid as I am.
So… all California needs to do is have our utilities pay green producers elsewhere “for” our electricity, while some of the out of state utilities pay our coal, hydro, and natural gas plants “for” their electricity. In reality the grids don’t even have to be connected except financially. No reason to stop at 33%, let’s go for 50%.
And yes, this will raise costs for consumers, and profits for PG&E and SoCal Edison.
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
=================================
Willis:
Appears my comments were misunderstood as well. My intent was to highlight a point which I thought would improve your argument. But hey, I’m used to it…I’ve been married for 30+ years and have find myself misunderstood most of the time!!
Keep up the fine work.
O
Just imagine all of the dams you’ll have to blow to bits in order to make it to 100% renewables.
I wanted to point out to you all that on my recent visit to LA, I did not see many houses with solar geysers.
I think that is really stupid/
I mean I know that my carbon footprint is good for earth but you could save up to 40% of your energy bill if you let the sun do the heating of the water for you.
It works a bit like the inverse of a radiator in your car. The sun’s light is magnified onto the coils inside the solar panel
The government run electricity co here (in South Africa) actually gives you a rebate on installation costs – wouldn’t that be a good way for Cal. to stimulate “green”?
harrywr2
April 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm
###
That was not my point. Using select “facts” to create propaganda is SOP. The Seattle Times is on a campaign to make Hydro look bad and Wind look good. Their solution is to get rid of cheap reliable Hydro so that it will not “unfairly” undercut the market for idiotic Wind. The tone of the Seattle Times article was designed to support this. That was my point.
Just to add to my post here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/14/between-wind-and-water/#comment-642519
I know there are those of you who say: what about when the sun don’t shine?
True,
therefore, the solar geyser is also supported with electrical power. You set the geyser at a certain temp. and when the sun does not shine the electrical power comes on.
I have taken it a step further and built in a timer switch. If you know when you will always need warm water, you set the timer switch in such a way that it will always come on a few hours before you need it. In this way you always have warm water when you want it, whether the sun shines or not.
how’s that?
So only ‘big hydro’ is not renewable, while ‘small hydro’ (see figure 2) is?
Even for the Kafkaesque California environment, this is an absurdity.
Solar output peaks at 2100 hours? Um, no.
It is really nice of Californians to fully embrace the Green Vision of Energy for the future. They have volunteered to be the experimental rats. All the rest of us have to do is sit back and wait for the results. I am betting that no matter what happens the Greens will double down. In our lifetimes, California will achieve a kind of Primitivism that is a synthesis of genuine primitivism, a Dionysian artistic primitivism, and Stalinism, a modern, robust, statist primitivism.
richcar that 1225 says:
April 14, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Willis,
My quoted numbers above were for 2010, not 2008, and are from the California CPUC (who keeps score on this very question). I agree that getting to 33% will be very difficult, and more to the point, very expensive for the consumer.
w.
oatley says:
April 15, 2011 at 3:23 am
My apologies to you as well, Oatley. Yeah, sometimes I get kinda hair-trigger, I’ve been bitten so much that sometimes I hallucinate teeth, my bad.
On a different note, as a 30+ years married man myself I’ve been wondering about a philosophical marriage question, maybe you can help me. Here’s the question:
w.
Is this California plan in line with the communist Van Jones’ plan for creating a bazillion “Green Jobs?”
Willis,
I do not know where you are geting your info. I could only find info for 2009 on the CPUC site.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
These numbers are the same as the 2008 EIA and show the wind and solar contribution as 2.9% and the large hydroelectric at 9.2%. Geothermal is at 4.6% and small hydro is at 1.7%. Without large hydroelectric there is only 8.7% renewable total for wind, solar, geothermal and small hydro.
Its worst than we thought.
This is a long comment about a small and temporary problem. All great accomplishments are accompanied by setbacks, and as setbacks go this is, to repeat, a small one. Eventually the transmission lines to carry more power will be built where they are required, and anyway the great surplus of water that is to be experienced this year happens less than one in ten years, on average. I find much fault with my fellow Californians, but not about this: right now in California electricity from solar power is cost competitive with electricity from gas turbines, for peak generation, and the costs of solar power are declining. California can meet its 33% renewable standard by 2020.
ps. “Septic Matthew” is the name I started using when posting at Real Climate.
Septic Matthew says:
“…right now in California electricity from solar power is cost competitive with electricity from gas turbines…”
Only if the heavy subsidies are ignored. And what is the problem with natural gas power, anyway? It is available any time, while unreliable solar is only available in the daytime and when the sky isn’t cloudy.
Solar power is to natural gas power as a horse and buggy is to a diesel train.
Willis wrote this: “Look, I gave you the CAISO website. ………Stop busting me for not spoon-feeding you, and go out foraging for yourselves.”
The CAISO website is reliable as far as it goes, but it excludes the cities of Los Angeles and Sacramento, except insofar as they may from time to time export electricity to the grid. CAISO maintains the grid, and it measures the power generated to the grid and taken up from the grid. However, California has about 3,000 MW of roof mounted solar panels, and the electricity from these is mostly not measured by the grid; such electricity shows up only as reduced demand in the neighborhoods where they are generating their electricity, because then CAISO is required to deliver that much less electricity to those neighborhoods. Peak summertime demand on CAISO is about 50,000 MW, so roof-mounted solar panels now generate approximately 6% of summertime peak demand. By simultaneously installing roof-mounted solar panels (that reduce demand on CAISO), and building large generating facilities (as those in the Mojave Desert), California should have no trouble meeting its renewable energy standard in 10 years. Extrapolating trends of the last few years over the next 10, it’s not unreasonable to think that California will be getting 2/3 of its electricity from renewable sources, even with its narrow definition of “renewable”.
Willis writes lots of good stuff, but this one isn’t very good.
I’ll grant you that all of this electricity from renewable sources is expensive in the short run, but so were the roads, the California Water Project, the Airports, and everything else. California’s big problems have been underinvestment in infrastructure simultaneous with increased tax rates — but those are topics for another day.
Smokey wrote: Only if the heavy subsidies are ignored. And what is the problem with natural gas power, anyway? It is available any time, while unreliable solar is only available in the daytime and when the sky isn’t cloudy.
In California, peak demand occurs in the daytime, and peaks most when the sky isn’t cloudy; consequently, peak generation from solar power matches peak demand for air conditioning. All costs considered, solar now is cheaper for meeting peak demand than gas-fired turbines. It’s true that the turbines could be run at night, but they aren’t because electricity demand is much lower at night — that contributes to their cost because the electricity is only purchased a few hours per day.
California is not going to replace its entire electricity generating capacity in one year. First there is solar for peak generation, and solar is cost-competitive now. Solar is getting cheaper, whereas everything else is getting more expensive.
richcar that 1225 says:
April 15, 2011 at 10:16 am
The 2010 numbers are here (PDF).
w.
RE: Septic Matthew, April 15, 2011 at 11:23 am;
Yes, I am certain you are right that the People’s Republic of Kalifornia will be able to meet their 33% renewable goal by 2020.
All five of the remaining residents of the state will be hippies who haven’t yet figured out where everyone else went.
They won’t require any electricity as their VW bus will be powered by butterfly farts and wishful thinking. Further; they will use said VW bus to exit the state, once they realize their are no wealthy taxpayers or evil corporations left to pay for all of the services hippies demand for free.
Hopefully Oregon, Nevada and Arizona will have erected barricades by that point in time. Nevadan’s aren’t that numerous; they’ll be overwhelmed by the impending exodus before anybody realizes what’s going on.
Septic Matthew says:
“…right now in California electricity from solar power is cost competitive with electricity from gas turbines…”
Solar powered electricity whether from PV or thermal plants relies on feed in tarrifs to compete. This is what New South Wales did for PV. The result was that electricity rates skyrocketed and the Labor government had their biggest loss ever in recent elections.
Although the result of feed in tarrifs is higher electricity rates it still does not contribute any significant amount of electricity generation.
The higher electricity rates in California will continue to encourage industry to leave.
Septic Matthew says:
April 15, 2011 at 11:23 am
Septic, you are right. If we throw large amounts of money at it, this “small problem” will go away, and then everyone will be paying more for their electricity. Lather, rinse, and repeat, throw money at each “small problem” as it comes up, all it takes is more and more of my money to make it all work perfectly … what’s wrong with this picture?
Somehow, to me that seems like a non-solution to a non-problem.
Also, the idea that solar is “cost competitive with electricity from gas turbines, for peak generation” screams for a citation. At this point, I don’t believe it one bit. If that were true, everyone would be switching to solar, and they’re not. I’m putting it in the “dream on” file until you come up with some data to back it up. I suspect you are conflating “fuel cost” or “marginal generation cost” with “total running cost”.
w.
PS – You say:
You did note that, despite a heap of boasting just like yours, California was unable to meet its 20% renewable standard? That’s why they’re replacing it with the new goal … because they couldn’t meet the old one. In your shoes, I’d cut down on the boasting for a while. The new standard will be harder to meet than the old one, and much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Just sayin’ …