I called the media support line for this press release issues today, to ask a couple of questions, here are the answers:
1. Q: Besides the heat wave, what other factors are contributing? A: “A Natural Gas plant of 775 megawatts went offline last night. The San Onofre nuclear plant remains offline with no restart scheduled.”
2. Q: Where is wind power in all of this, is it performing? A: “Well as you know, wind has to blow for wind power to be effective. ”
The graph from CAISO tells the story, wind power has tumbled when it is most needed:
Of course, renewables are a drop in the bucket compared to the total demand seen here.
California ISO Declares Flex-Alert Statewide
With a major heat wave bearing down on California, the ISO is declaring a Flex Alert tomorrow through August 12.
Consumers are urged to reduce their energy use during the afternoon when air conditioners drive consumption. Find Flex Alert tips at www.caiso.com
Electricity conservation today, August 9, would also be helpful during the afternoon peak between 11:00 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Today’s Forecast peak demand: 47,125 megawatts
24-Hour Ahead Outlook for Friday, Aug 10: Flex Alert
High temperatures are forecast statewide. Energy demand is expected to be high and consumers are urged to reduce energy usage between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Forecast peak demand: 46,800 megawatts
48-Hour Ahead Outlook for Saturday, Aug 11: Flex Alert
The heat wave continues through the weekend. The California ISO is urging reduced energy usage between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday
Forecast peak demand: 43,000 megawatt
72-Hour Ahead Outlook for Sunday, Aug 12: Flex Alert
Temperatures will continue to be hot. Conservation is helpful between noon – 6 p.m.
Forecast peak demand: 43,000 megawatt
Go to www.caiso.com and click “Notify me” to sign up for Flex Alerts and other updates. Follow real time grid conditions at http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx.
================================================
Welcome to the third world. h/t to Roger Sowell.
Good graphs on the CAISO website. That is, good use of the vertical scale to catch the unwary. The vertical axis for renewables is expanded 10x compared to the scale for total energy.
Who told Bob Dylan about wind & when did he 1st know it ?
” … Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol
…Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
You’re an idiot, babe
It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe …
“… Idiot wind, blowing through the buttons of our coats
Blowing through the letters that we wrote
…Idiot wind, blowing through the dust upon our shelves
We’re idiots, babe
It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves”
“A Natural Gas plant of 775 megawatts went offline last night. The San Onofre nuclear plant remains offline with no restart scheduled.”
Shouldn’t this article be about how gas and nuclear are not coming through. At least the wind turbines are producing power which is more than these 2 plants are. Why no comment on the unreliability of gas and nuclear. They are the ones offline.
That’s what happens when you let actors run the place…
Eventually this will be self regulating. More wind farms = higher prices for a very basic commodity. Higher prices will drive businesses interstate thus reducing demand. Fewer businesses and fewer people = less state income and thus the State and its (remaining) people spiral downwards into bankruptcy. Contrast to China which realises that it is a “right” that their people can afford to keep cool and / or warm AND that for businesses to be effective on the world stage necessitates low cost power. Behind the scene the Chinese, Indian and Russian leaders are laughing at the stupidity of the west as we fervently push our nations into an increasingly uncompetitive status.
A change greater than wind to coal is looming. Google LENR (COLD FUSION) and see what N.I., MIT,BOEING ,GE, NASA and SIEMENS and many more are up to. In little time Solar, Wind ,Wave and Fossil power will be obsolete ,together with national grids and pipelines.
What will the Warministas do then? Poor things.
Yesterday morning I logged the total UK wind power output at 14 Mw. That’s right, those thousands of useless windmills that desecrate our countryside were generating just 14 Mw.
This morning, as I write, it’s a massive 21 Mw.
Fortunately we still have nuclear, coal and gas power stations that actually work. But if these morons actually achieve their aim of 30% from wind power then, whenever we have similar high pressure conditions over the UK, we’re going to lose one third of our capacity. Result: massive and sustained power cuts. And these conditions often occur in winter, precisely when we most need energy for heating.
As far as I’m aware the UK has no plans for any backup capacity at all, obviously because of the massive extra cost.
Complete and utter madness.
You can monitor the UK’s power output here:
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Look at the table about two thirds down the page.
Chris
I blame Anthony for charging up his car and bringing the system crashing down. Perhaps if everyone with a brain in California turned on the AC at the same time, you could kill off renewables forever.
John:
At August 10, 2012 at 12:05 am you quote then ask:
I write to answer your question in case there are any ‘lurkers’ who do not know its answer.
No!
Nuclear and gas operate for ~95% of the time and only normally shut-down for scheduled maintenance. However, there is a small possibility of the failure of a power station or the transmission lines from it. It takes days to start a power station from cold (they utilise steam turbines and anybody who has boiled a kettle knows it takes time to boil the water, to superheat the steam, and to heat all the components of the plant). Therefore, some power stations operate as “spare capacity” so they can provide the grid with electricity needed to overcome any shortfall in supply from such a failure.
“Spare capacity” is kept as small as possible for provision of adequate protection against the equipment failure risks because operation of “spare capacity” is very expensive (it needs additional power stations, fuel and operating costs).
Wind power provides failure of supply for most of the time because a windfarm only operates when the wind is strong enough but not too strong. Hence, use of wind power increases the need for “spare capacity”. Indeed, this increase is such that if windpower is more than ~20% of supply then additional power stations need to be built and operated to provide sufficient spare capacity to enable the grid to use the wind power.
So, large addition of wind power to the grid supply without construction and operation of additional spare capacity provides severe risk of supply failures in the event of the failure of a power station or the transmission lines from it. This is the Californian situation which has required the reported “flex alert”. As the article says, Californian electricity consumers have been asked to reduce their electricity demand. Lower need for electricity supply provides reduced need for the additional spare capacity which California lacks because of California’s use of wind power.
About a decade ago this problem was so severe that California enforced reduced electricity demand by means of “rolling brown-outs”. The severity of that problem was then obtained by California relying on excess electricity in adjacent States to provide much of California’s needed spare capacity, and risks of supply failures arose when those States increased their electricity use so they had reduced their electricity excess that Californian used as spare capacity.
So, no windfarms and there is no need for additional spare capacity.
And the windfarms contribute no useful electricity to the grid at any time.
The power stations need to provide all the power supplied from the grid when the windfarms are not supplying to the grid. When windfarms do supply electricity then they displace the power stations
(a) onto ‘spinning standby’ (so they continue to consume their fuel and emit their emissions)
or
(b) to operate at lower output. This reduces their efficiency so they increase their use of fuel and increase their emissions (this like driving a car at 10 mph in fifth gear: it can be done but it uses much fuel).
The power stations operate like this while waiting for the wind to change because it takes days to start a power station from cold.
One caveat. Gas-fired turbine units can start rapidly because they do not use steam turbines but they are very inefficient so provide very expensive electricity. Combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) units are much more efficient so they are the preferred option for gas-fired generation..
Richard
This situation advocates the introduction of Smart Meters – the instigators, backers and supporters of the ‘green’ initiatives that have resulted in potential power cuts could then fall on their swords and be the first to have their power cut off……. voluntarily of course.
“California obviously didn’t do their homework on how this has already happened in Denmark with wind power.”
What are you talking about, Justus?
Denmark has never had a black out due to wind energy. We use coal as our primary energy source and we have no problems handling changes in wind energy output. Just look at this site were you can see Danish energy production and use in real time with import/export added.
http://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/index.html
A couple of points.
Flex Alerts are a request for all Californians to postpone electrical use until after 6 pm. So, we wait to run the clothes washer, clothes dryer, dish washer. We are to set thermostats to 78 degrees F for indoor cooling until 6 pm.
The advertising was to Flex Your Power. I works, in some small way.
Regarding the demand and power shortage, the State does not consider wind power reliable so gas, nuclear, and large hydroelectric are required to meet peak load.
While Anthony is correct that wind did not come through, planners don’t expect wind to carry that burden. Same for solar. What is expected is the nuclear plants would be at 100 percent. The SONGS plant (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station) is offline now since January, I believe, so approximately 2109 MW is not available. Leaking heat exchangers caused the shutdown of both reactors.
Additionally, a large gas-fired plant broke down.
The State has further steps to take to ensure reliable power during heat waves, with some large users agreeing to shut down if requested to do so. Many government buildings do this, and some private sector users too.
Yesterday was a bit troubling, as the alert was issued for an expected peak of roughly 45,000 MW. Available supplies were about 50,009 MW. Yet, the state’s previous peak demand was roughly 50,000 MW. Perhaps population decrease, economic recession, improved efficiency, and conservation are reducing the peak load. There is no way the state could meet 50,000 MW demand today.
Also, as today is Friday, fewer state workers are working due to budget shortfalls. Offsetting that is the start of school for millions of children.
Finally, wind production peaked earlier around June 30 at 3,300 MW, with almost 70,000 MWhr daily production. Wind was strong and steady that day. In late summer this typically will not occur. It is up to the gas-fired plants to meet the challenge.
The nukes at SONGS are broken, we import all the power we can, solar and wind are known to be unreliable, so the workhorses of the industry, the gas-fired plants, must step up.
@richardscourtney 4:25 am Aug 10, 2012
Interesting comment, but the facts are against you. I have no time at the moment but plan to respond more fully later this evening.
Just curious… Where do EV’s fall in the power allocation prioritization? Can I call my boss and claim that flex-alert prevented me from charging my electric-only car last night, so I cannot make it in to work today?
I can see that California represents a useful experiment in the energy craziness. The data is starting to come in. Maybe someone there will begin to make some prognostications on where this silliness is really heading. Californian bureaucrats may not connect the dots, but those contemplating the grand zero CO2, zero nuclear, zero hydro plan may adjust.
OK, I am in a quite corrupt part of the world, and we do whatever “European” exporters and local crooks masquerading as Renewables businessmen tell us. So we have equally decorative wind “farms”. What IS California’s excuse? What a waste of money… Haven’t they heard? Wind is marginal in substituting actual fuel (and has never replaced a single conventional plant).
The stuff has been around since 1975, and has never made it They exist only for the subsidies they get. Other things get subsidies, but they produce electricity 365/24 for 40-50 years… 99.9% availablitiy. Not 15 and 20% that wind gets… Ever tried running an elevator or an ER of a hospital on wind power? Try manufacturing a wind turbine from wind power…
I love the ignorance of the general populace when it comes to matters of electrical power.
“Craig Moore says:
August 9, 2012 at 4:58 pm
There is a large wind farm between Shelby and Cut Bank Montana. That power is sold to San Diego. The blades are turning as I write.”
1. Just because the blades are turning doesn’t mean any power is being generated.
2. There is no way that the electrical energy generated in that wind farm goes to San Diego. It is just too far. AC transmission has a limit of 1000-1200 miles. You can go farther but it takes higher voltage and you still get lots of losses.
The buying and selling of renewable energy is just a big shell game. An accountant puts a drop in the buck on one spreadsheet and he thinks he should be able to take a drop out of another spreadsheet. Here in Wyoming, FPL (FLORIDA!) has a wind farm. I am sure they show themselves providing a ton of wind power to their customers. They aren’t even on the same interconnection grid!
Anthony showed the real problem in the original post. The San Onofre nuclear plant should NEVER be taken offline until it is to be decommissioned. Every time you turn off a nuke plant you cause lots of maintenance problems that you have to address before you can start it back up gain. Nuke is probably the best base load generation you can have since there is no reliance on daily fuel deliveries.
“Jonathan Smith says:
August 9, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Good graphs on the CAISO website. That is, good use of the vertical scale to catch the unwary. The vertical axis for renewables is expanded 10x compared to the scale for total energy.”
Yup. The peak from wind in the middle of the night was 1500 Mw, which happens to be the same as the 6 AM difference between the predicted load and the actual demand. The amount of wind power is lost in the noise. Light up two natural gas generating plants, and we get as much power as the forest of windmills… and indeed those two plants will be running because they are backing up the wind plants between gusts of wind. (For later readers who can’t see today’s graph, the total amount of available resources is about 50,000 Mw.)
Bloke down the pub: Perhaps if everyone with a brain in California turned on the AC at the same time, you could kill off renewables forever.
I dunno, Bloke, there may not be that many of us. Remember the voters recently reaffirmed AB 32 in a statewide election.
People are catching on to the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) fiasco so the latest is to repackage the RPS as “local sustainability” , “critical infrastructure” reliability ,and/or “microgrids”.
The fuel cell gang is often behind this to sell their uneconomic products which require 50% more gas to generate a kWh than modern gas turbine combined cycle plants. (The fuel cells also generate 50% more CO2).
HR 762 was introduced Friday which encourages towns to generate 20% as locally.
The RPS is being repackaged.
From Power Engineering:
Tea Party Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Md.) on Friday introduced H.R. 762, a bill that encourages communities and organizations to generate at least 20% of their own electricity demand to ensure independent operation of critical infrastructure in the event of a grid emergency.
“The U.S. electric grid is one of our nation’s 18 critical infrastructures. However, none of the other 17 will function without electricity. America’s grid is vulnerable to widespread blackouts of extended duration,” the lawmaker noted.
The bill notes that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) have established five separate Low Frequency–High Impact (LFHI) events that could inflict extended-duration grid blackouts to the North American power network: cyber attack, solar geomagnetic storm electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), coordinated physical attack, nuclear EMP, or a pandemic.
It also cites a series of workshops in October 2011 on energy security that highlighted the need for greater local sustainability in light of a prolonged nationwide power loss, as well as a Hoover-Brookings joint report that shows distributed power for security applications is “either cost competitive or approaching competitiveness as new innovations come to market.”
The bill calls for every community and institution—local fire halls, schools, and faith-based organization—to create “sustainable local infrastructure and planning capacity” to mitigate high-impact scenarios. It also calls for states and the federal government to “support the ability of local communities to become stronger, and self-reliant.”
“In light of these known risks, my legislation encourages communities and organizations to generate at least 20% of their own electricity demand to ensure independent operation of critical infrastructure and vital national security missions and to provide adequate supplies of basic necessities and services,” Bartlett said at a press conference on Aug. 3, flanked by experts on civil defense preparations. “It is critical that we in Congress send the message that it is in the interest of national security that every community and institution, especially our military, reestablish their capabilities to be self-sufficient independent of the grid.”
“We also need to encourage individuals to develop and implement a plan that will provide for themselves and their family sufficient food, water and other emergency supplies necessary to weather an electricity outage when there is no one there to call,” he added.
Bartlett’s bill, which was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, was cosponsored by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-Ga.), and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). Analysis by govtack.us suggests that the resolution has a 52% chance of being accepted.
I thought this site was devoted to Climate Science. Instead I see every topic listed on Heartland Institute’s site related to the fossil fuel industry: Global Warming Skepticism, Arguments against alternative energy, defense of fracking, and on and on. Where does this agenda come from, anyway?
Neil Gundel says:
August 10, 2012 at 8:38 am
I thought this site was devoted to Climate Science. Instead I see every topic listed on Heartland Institute’s site related to the fossil fuel industry: Global Warming Skepticism, Arguments against alternative energy, defense of fracking, and on and on. Where does this agenda come from, anyway?
Its a conspiracy funded by the Koch brothers, didn’t you know? Although none of us has ever received communication or checks, its just a conspiracy man. Evil oil is financing this evilness. We want to trash the Earth and we want the sky to fall.
/sarc
But to answer your question, the politics comes from stupidity from climate scientists. They tell the politicians that coal is bad or whatever all the time not based on science but on emotion. Just look at Dr. Hansen and his “coal trains are death trains” meme or other climate scientists that tell the world we need to act now and that nuclear is not the answer (although it emits no CO2). And what happens? Well these scientists give their OPINIONS based on emotion and it sets into motion such nonsense as subsidies for wind, solar and other nonsense that makes no difference to CO2 emissions and is a vastly more expensive and inferior form of power.
Where does this come from, common sense. If you don’t see it, I can’t help you, but in the end global warming science is just as much about what policy decisions are made as it is about actual science…since climate-gate when we confirmed that the climate scientists and activists are the same pea in the pod.
And why is their defense of certain forms of power and attacks on others? Why it has to do with actual economics and actual facts instead of emotional tirades. We are trying to be reasonable and set the bar high with facts, figures etc. That is not happening with the climate scientists.
And a final quote because I can:
“For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics!”
-New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Jonathan Smith: Good graphs on the CAISO website. That is, good use of the vertical scale to catch the unwary. The vertical axis for renewables is expanded 10x compared to the scale for total energy.
Actual supply and demand numbers are right there in large type. I expect that most of the “unwary” don’t visit this site to get caught.
Neil Gundel: Where does this agenda come from, anyway?
It is and always has been set by Anthony’s interests. Enjoy the visit!
Steve Fletcher: The San Onofre nuclear plant should NEVER be taken offline until it is to be decommissioned.
Pipes in the cooling system had to be replaced due to wear; then the replacement pipes had to be replaced. You really would not want those pipes to fail during operation. Eventually the pipes will be fully repaired, and the plants will be up and running again.