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)
harrywr2 says:
April 16, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Citations beat claims hands down. From the EIA site you can find the wholesale price of electricity in California, day by day, for the past ten years. This is the price that the utilities are buying power from each other for. You can do this stuff yourself, guys, back up your claims with facts.
As you can see, while there are spikes in August, they are not that large (a penny or two increase per KWh), and they do not significantly alter the annual pricing. So your claim, while generally true, makes no difference.
How come I have to do this graph, and it’s your claim?
As the wholesale price chart shows, reasonably priced power is available for purchase year-round. The reason San Diego is not availing itself of that power is that it is not ideologically pure power … heck, even you guys’ hydropower from Bonneville is not considered ideologically pure, harry. I know that you think that “So as long as the PNW has power to spare California ‘peak load’ wholesale rates are reasonable”, but it’s not true, because in far too many cases California won’t be able to purchase Bonneville power regardless of the price. The mandated 33% renewables, remember, doesn’t include nasty old hydropower …
w.
Willis wrote: Making claims without citations is useless. You have claimed that solar is cost-competitive in California for meeting peak demand. You have not demonstrated that. You have not given us the price for peaking power, just claimed that solar is cheaper.
You’ll have to take that up with SCE. They claimed that they got a better deal for electricity from solar than for electricity from gas. Unless you have evidence that they are lying, I’ll accept their word for the time being; their goal is to earn money for their shareholders. I think that we might better drop this for a while and pick it up again in July.
Just to clarify one point: You are not claiming, are you, that peak electricity does not cost more than baseline electricity?
Septic Matthew says:
April 16, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Just to clarify, you’re refusing to provide a citation, giving up on the claim that you made, and sending me to talk to someone else? Is that correct? Because they certainly haven’t made the claim that you are making, that solar is cost-competitive. If there were no requirement to purchase solar, do you truly think San Diego wouldn’t purchase something … mmm … well, “reliable”?
I assume you can read the chart I just posted. Why are you asking me about the price, I’m the one that is posting citations and graphs? What I am saying is that you claimed that solar was cheaper than gas or coal. It’s only cheaper than the bogus MPR.
w.
Willis wrote: From the EIA site you can find the wholesale price of electricity in California, day by day, for the past ten years.
On Sept 24, 2010, 173,000 MWH of electricity was traded by 24 companies in 163 separate trades. that’s a lot of work, but the average power over the 24 hours was 7233 MW, less than half the minimum (19,000 MW) reported by CAISO for April 17. Put differently, that’s only about a third of the total for April 16, 2011, which was 565,859MWH — on a cool day. That’s more missing data than the amount of missing data in the Nature paper on changes in rainfall extremes in the U.S.
What we need are: (1) all the price data; and (2) the prices charged to SoCal Edison. Until then, we have no reason to question SoCal Edison’s claim that they got a better price deal from solar than from gas.
Willis wrote: I know that you think that “So as long as the PNW has power to spare California ‘peak load’ wholesale rates are reasonable”, but it’s not true, because in far too many cases California won’t be able to purchase Bonneville power regardless of the price. The mandated 33% renewables, remember, doesn’t include nasty old hydropower …
That’s a silly exaggeration; if priced right, the Bonneville power will be bought as part of the other 67% — and the 33% mandate doesn’t take effect for 9 more years anyway. The surplus power supply that prompted this thread only occurs every 10-20 years. In other years, such as the years of the “electricity crisis”, there are severe shortages of hydropower due to droughts, and in those years the new wind farms will be a welcome addition to the supply.
I mentioned that California has in the last few years installed 3,000MW of rooftop solar electrical power (that was reported on the CleanTechnica blog.) That is almost 6% of peak demand. Had it been available 10 years ago, there would have been no “electricity crisis”, because the “crisis” consisted of a 3% or less shortfall in peak supply — but that’s a story for another time.
Willis wrote: Just to clarify, you’re refusing to provide a citation, giving up on the claim that you made, and sending me to talk to someone else? Is that correct? Because they certainly haven’t made the claim that you are making, that solar is cost-competitive. If there were no requirement to purchase solar, do you truly think San Diego wouldn’t purchase something … mmm … well, “reliable”?
It was an announcement to the press by SoCal Edison. That announcement to the press was what was cited by Clean Technica. To clarify another point, San Diego is served by San Diego Gas and Electric; Socal Edison serves a large region of Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and Riverside County. In San Diego County, few things are more “reliable” than sunshine.
Septic Matthew says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:41 am
I know who said it, Matthew. But unless I missed it, all they said was that the Solar was cheaper than 11¢ per KWh.
Perhaps that impresses you. All it means to me is that they are buying expensive power. I asked you for a citation that they are buying solar for less than competitive fossil power … you come back to tell me where your citation is from.
I knew that already, Matthew. I read the citation. The problem seems to be that you didn’t, you only read the headline that says “SCE Buys 20 Years of Solar Power for Less than Natural Gas”, and you believed it.
I looked deeper, and found that it was not cheaper than natural gas. That was just some headline writer’s fantasy. All it was cheaper than was some imaginary number ginned up by the good bureaucrats of California. I know that you are impressed that they can beat an imaginary number which, as I have shown, is twice the average cost of electricity in California.
Me, I’m not impressed by meeting fantasy targets that are twice the cost of the competition. Not one bit.
w.
Septic Matthew says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:36 am
SoCal Edison is free to buy from (or sell to) CAISO at three to five cents per Kwh year-round … so WE HAVE THE PRICE CHARGED TO SOCAL EDISON. What is so hard to get your head around in that?
PS – Your claim of “missing data” is nonsense. Yes, the traded power is less than the generated power. Think about it for a while, and you’ll realize why that doesn’t mean “missing data”.
Well, I’m going to ignore your fantasy that 3,000 MW of rooftop solar will actually provide 3,000 MW of power when it is most needed. The level of nonsense is way too deep on that. If you take a look at the chart of renewables at the top you’ll see that the total of all renewable generation was about 3,000 MW … and remember, that included your latest 3,000 MW of installed solar.
Regarding whether California can always buy power (baseline or otherwise) from Bonneville, as you point out in California we have our own hydropower plants … and we sometimes can’t buy from them. However, as long as Bonneville is selling power at cost, it will be the first power bought. Why? Because it’s the cheapest, they’re a not-for-profit generation utility.
But all that does is push the problem elsewhere, however, because the cap (whether 20% or 33%) comes into play. And surely, you don’t think the utilities are buying solar because they want to? You might have noticed that San Diego was not interested in fossil fuel at all at any cost. Their RFP was for solar and solar alone, no proposals from fossil fuel generation were even entertained …
Matthew, here’s the bottom line. If solar were cheaper than fossil, it would be adopted all over the world. It’s not, and as a result, it hasn’t been adopted anywhere except for places where it is subsidized … you do understand that, yes?
Someday it may be that cheap. Until then, you seem to think that I should pay extra for your granola-fueled preference through subsidies and renewable standards.
I, on the other hand, will thank you kindly to keep your damn hands out of my pockets and if you want solar, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!!.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 17, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“Someday it may be that cheap.”
You have my sympathy, Willis, in dealing with the “solar true believers”, but I would not concede them even that much hope for the future economics of that particular technology. As I demonstrated in my simple analysis, photovoltaic solar is a minimum of 7 times as expensive as CCGT over any reasonable plant life at current natural gas prices. The European experience would indicate the true multiple is 12.5 times as expensive.
According to an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers report on photovoltaic solar, the solar cells themselves represent only 50% of the plant cost. Taking an economic analysis to the ultimate “best case” ditch of “zero cost” for the solar cells themselves would still yield multiples of 3.5 times the cost of solar versus CCGT in my example and 6.25 times the cost in the European experience.
The problem with solar and, to a less acute extent with wind, is the pitiful “energy density” of the technologies. That limitation precludes the kind of “economy of scale” that brought conventional and nuclear power into the realm of economic reasonableness. Our grandchildren will marvel at our madness.
Wills wrote: I know who said it, Matthew. But unless I missed it, all they said was that the Solar was cheaper than 11¢ per KWh.
You missed it: they said that it was cheaper than the alternative bid from a gas-powered supply.
The 3,000 MW of roof-mounted solar power I wrote of is not measured by CAISO because it is distributed, and not fed into their system through a measured trunk. If I install a 2 kw system on my roof ( which I won’t because my monthly electricity bill remains always below $35), CAISO will never know.
Willis, everybody is wrong sometimes. On this thread, you are wrong. After making a couple little errors, you have been chasing your tail and cracking wise.
Septic Matthew says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Wills wrote: I know who said it, Matthew. But unless I missed it, all they said was that the Solar was cheaper than 11¢ per KWh.
Even if Septic’s statement is true, (which I doubt, because I was getting 13.5 cents per kwh for geothermal power in California under the last of the old SO-4 contracts in year 2,000) look at the analysis I provided. The rate required to support financing of the solar plant is 25.14 cents/kwh. Anything less than that represents tax-payer subsidies in the form of stimulus funds, tax credits and accelerated depreciation for the plant owner. One way or another, the rate payer is footing an exorbitant premium for solar power.
Solar is a “self-eating water melon”!
Septic Matthew says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Citation? Because in their letter to the PUC, they say (emphasis mine):
Note that they are asking for proposals for renewable power under the California definition.
And the other citation you gave says (emphasis mine):
So, if you have information about an “alternative bid” for fossil fuels, when the bid request specified renewable energy only, you’d better bring it forth. Because until then, I’m going to believe the citations that you supplied previously …
w.
Septic Matthew says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:14 pm
If I put a panel on the roof that is not connected to the grid, that is true. Hey, I’m a fan of solar. I’ve lived entirely off the grid, had the panels, a dozen 2 volt batteries, the inverter, the whole thing, did all the maintenance myself. I am not a theoretician in these matters.
If my rooftop solar panel is connected to the grid as part of adding 250 million watts of generation capability, on the other hand, the local San Diego grid utility operator (and thus CAISO, since San Diego is a part of CAISO) will instantaneously know (and report on) every detail of the generation of the San Diego solar 250 Mw upgrade. San Diego has to know every instant how much power the panels are providing, so that they can balance the load.
w.
Willis wrote: San Diego has to know every instant how much power the panels are providing, so that they can balance the load.
No more than CAISO measures whether I run an air conditioner or a freezer in the garage can CAISO know whether I am generating power from solar. All they know is from the lowest level of their measurement network. If homeowners here and there in the SCE service region install rooftop solar systems, CAISO knows nothing more than the load on every trunk line. Consequently, as I wrote, the 3,000 MW of widely distributed roof-mounted solar power does not show up on the CAISO hourly totals. It’s merely a smaller load on the grid than if they hadn’t been installed.
Willis wrote: If my rooftop solar panel is connected to the grid as part of adding 250 million watts of generation capability, on the other hand, the local San Diego grid utility operator (and thus CAISO, since San Diego is a part of CAISO) will instantaneously know (and report on) every detail of the generation of the San Diego solar 250 Mw upgrade.
Only if they are all installed simultaneously, and go on and off simultaneously. If a few percent of houses are upgraded nonsimultaneously here and there throughout the service area, CAISO and SDG&E can’t tell the difference between a bunch of new PV panels and a concerted effort to run the air conditioners at higher target temperatures. Or, for that matter, a bunch of unoccupied homes and defunct businesses. All they know are total loads in the metered areas.
I should mention that this is changing with newer meters: in some places, and eventually everywhere, they know house-by-house consumption on a minute-by-minute basis. Soon Californian’s electric bills will reflect the time of day at which they consumed the most electricity. This information is not now reflected in CAISO statistics, which only reflect energy transferred through the main trunks of the grid. If you are a heavy user of A/C, and if you install a modest PV panel, they won’t be able to distinguish (from your usage statistics) whether you have installed the PV panel or merely changed your A/C setting, or abandoned your house. All they know are the net flows, not the appliances.
I thought that I would end with two commercial news items, one not so new.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/first-solar-reaches-grid-parity-milestone-says-report-5389/
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-junction-setting-new-cpv-efficiency-records/
By summertime, perhaps we can pry out of Sempra and other wholesalers, out of SDG&E and other retailers what the wholesalers actually charge the retailers for peak electricity.
We have an enormous untapped potential of renewable power in our prison systems. Just think about all those inmates giving it their best on their personal generators for eight hours per day, seven days a week! That ‘s probably gig upon gigawatt-hours of energy at idle now. All the judges have to do is be a bit sharper on their sentencing. Why think of all the saving when we put jaywalkers in prison for ten years or more. The more I think of it, why there is no reason we can’t strangle the National Debt with this program. Maybe O’Bumma will be first to volunteer. It’s about time we get something out of him!
Septic Matthew says:
April 19, 2011 at 11:00 am
Well, other than providing some humor regarding what they claim is “grid parity”, that one’s useless. Here’s a quote:
Do you just post this stuff without reading it, Matthew? Because that paragraph merely shows that the author doesn’t have a clue about the power business …
First, he quotes installation costs per kilowatt-hour, which is meaningless. Then he claims conventional power fed into the grid costs nine cents per KWh, when I’ve shown various times that it is much less than that. Industrial power in Nevada is selling at six cents per KWh … so if you believe that convention power costs (not sells for but costs) nine cents per KWh and they’re selling it for six cents per KWh, remind me not to buy stock in any of your businesses. What is it with you guys and imaginary numbers?
And at the end of the day, the report you cite is 100% fantasy. They don’t have a single actual data point in the story, not a word about verifiable power costs. As you point out, perhaps some day we may get the actual data from Sempra … but until then, why are you bothering us with someone’s guesses?
Matthew, as I said, I’m a big fan of solar … where it works. But posting some mathematically challenged reporter’s gushing about ridiculously exaggerated numbers doesn’t advance the cause of solar, it impedes it.
w.
FWIW, here are SDG&E rates: http://www.sdge.com/customer/rates/tierCosts.shtml
Here are a couple of hypothetical bills: http://www.sdge.com/documents/customer/summerrates_2010.pdf
For SDG&E customers, the target rate for daytime electricity is $.30/kwh, because that is about the tier 3 and 4 price. I am a tier 1 guy myself. But if I wanted to A/C my house and pay $300/month to do it, I’d install a solar system, which for me would cost about $0.15-$0.25/kwh over 30 years (less if I take advantage of the tax rebates.) The system would also drive the heat pump for winter heating, so I would save even more on gas.
I have a new meter, and I get a weekly report of my electricity consumption by time of day for each day. Eventually the electricity bill will charge the appropriate hourly rate for each hour, after everyone in the SDG&E service area has the new meter, and the system is all tested. I forget when the changeover is scheduled to occur, but by then solar will be cheaper and gas will be more expensive (N.B. America’s vast new gas reserves are a long way from here, and will be bought by utilities converting away from coal, and probably by someone who wants to make liquid fuel [because the price of petroleum will not decline much]).
We can have this discussion again at that time.
Claude Harvey wrote: The rate required to support financing of the solar plant is 25.14 cents/kwh.
Check out the tier 3 and 4 pricing for SDG&E that I linked to in response to Willis.
Septic Matthew says:
April 19, 2011 at 10:08 pm
In most of the western states the residential electricity price is on the order of eight to ten cents per kilowatt-hr (KWh).
Now you are using the San Diego retail price of about 30¢/KWh to justify solar at 25¢/KWh.
You have the stick by the wrong end. You need to justify why you think anyone should pay thirty cents an hour for electricity ever. Heck, the industrial rate in San Diego is ten cents a KWh … the utility is very lucky that they are a monopoly.
When I was a kid, Bonneville Dam was seen as a good thing because it would provide cheap power … and now, for some reason, you seem to think that expensive power is a good idea. How does that work? With San Diego industrial power (PDF) at ten cents a KWh (mountain states average 5.4 cents) no wonder industry is fleeing the state.
w.
Septic Matthew says:
April 17, 2011 at 11:36 am
That’s a silly exaggeration; if priced right, the Bonneville power will be bought as part of the other 67%
Nope. There isn’t enough transmission capacity. If the wind is blowing you will get wind power generated in Washington and Oregon that you are paying the generators subsidies for and BPA will just dump water and the Hanford Nuclear Plant will just throttle down.
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/final-report-columbia-river-high-water-operations.pdf
Last June 745,000 MWh was tossed, not including the output from the throttled down Hanford plant.
This year there is another 1,000 MW of windmills located in Oregon and Washington subsidized by California rate payers. Snow pack is good…gonna be wasting more hydropower.
I wouldn’t mind but my rates were kept low by the fact that we could sell some excess power to Californians.
Willis wrote: “In most of the western states the residential electricity price is on the order of eight to ten cents per kilowatt-hr (KWh).
Now you are using the San Diego retail price of about 30¢/KWh to justify solar at 25¢/KWh. ”
I was writing about California. And I was writing about peak power. For some reason, you keep ignoring my focus. As solar costs continue to decline, we’ll have to revisit this annually.
Septic Matthew says:
April 23, 2011 at 9:36 am
I understand that you would prefer to downplay the fact that power in other states is much cheaper than in California. I understand you’d like to restrict the discussion to just California for that reason. I’m not willing to do that.
The power price in California has been driven through the roof by people just like you. You have your hands in my pockets stealing my money. Now you don’t want to talk about the dimensions of your theft … gosh, that’s a surprise, Matthew. Crooks like you never want to talk about how big your ripoff is … so I’ll say it again. Day or night, peak or not, use a little or use a lot, people in Idaho pay about eight cents a KWh for their power.
You claim that buying (not selling but buying) solar power for 25 cents a KWh makes sense because the San Diego power company is a monopoly that can gouge its customers 30 cents a KWh … well, y’know, that’s not a real strong argument for expensive power.
So no, I’m not ignoring your focus on California peak power, and roses, and sunshine.
I’m defying your attempts to get people to ignore your theft. I’m refusing to pretend that a 30¢/KWh sale price is reasonable. For a man who claims to be in favor of solar, you sure are reluctant to have the sun shine its disinfecting light on your pricing nonsense …
w.
PS – I pointed out above that your claim of a competing fossil fuel bid for the San Diego folks was pure fantasy.
I invited you to back up your words. At that point, a gentleman would have either withdrawn the claim or defended it. You did neither.
You think that ignoring it gains you points, but actually folks notice these kinds of things, and you lose points for not admitting your errors. On the schoolground it’s called “put up or shut up”, and when you do neither, you lose the debate …
Willis wrote: You have your hands in my pockets stealing my money.
You have no grounds for that assertion. FWIW, I voted to repeal AB32.
Septic Matthew says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:32 pm
OK, I take it back. Now about the actual facts in the case …
w.