Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
California’s renewable energy policy pushing huge mandated increases in wind and solar so the state’s globally irrelevant greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets can be met has it’s citizens providing and paying millions of dollars for unusable renewable energy to be sent to other states – and this problem will likely only grow in the future.
An article in the L A. Times headlines:
Nor does the Times article expect such renewable energy dumping to stop in the future:
“Solar and wind power production was curtailed a relatively small amount — about 3% in the first quarter of 2017 — but that’s more than double the same period last year. And the surge in solar power could push the number even higher in the future.”
The Times article suggests one reason for this bizarre outcome is as follows:
“The answer, in part, is that the state has achieved dramatic success in increasing renewable energy production in recent years. But it also reflects sharp conflicts among major energy players in the state over the best way to weave these new electricity sources into a system still dominated by fossil-fuel-generated power.”
The Times article notes that environmental and renewable energy advocates claim state regulators and utilities are approving and building more fossil plants which is contributing to these problems and demand that this be stopped.
However regulators and utilities note that:
“the transition from fossil fuel power to renewable energy is complicated and that overlap is unavoidable.
They note that electricity demand fluctuates — it is higher in summer in California, because of air conditioning, and lower in the winter — so some production capacity inevitably will be underused in the winter. Moreover, the solar power supply fluctuates as well. It peaks at midday, when the sunlight is strongest. Even then it isn’t totally reliable.
Because no one can be sure when clouds might block sunshine during the day, fossil fuel electricity is needed to fill the gaps. Utility officials note that solar production is often cut back first because starting and stopping natural gas plants is costlier and more difficult than shutting down solar panels.”
However elsewhere in the Times article the complex issues of California’s electric system grid reliability and stability are finally but only briefly acknowledged:
The Times article fails to adequately address many electric system grid reliability and stability issues that must be provided by dispatchable fossil, hydro and nuclear generation resources to maintain effective, dependable and continuous electric system operation.
Furthermore the Times article also fails to mention key limitations of renewable energy resources that are critical to electric system grid operation including regulating margin, spinning reserves, standby reserves, frequency stabilization and black start capabilities all of which are mandatory for successful and reliable operation of an electric system grid.
These unmentioned electric system grid requirements unprovided by renewable energy resources will be definitive in dictating that under times of energy surplus renewable energy resources must be curtailed or shutdown to preserve electric system reliable operation capabilities.
A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) addressed electric system grid requirements which renewable energy resources fail to provide and noted the following with regard to these limitations:
“Reliable operation of the grid involves myriad challenges beyond just matching total generation to total load. Its role in cascading failures and blackouts illustrates the important role of the transmission system (22). Reliable grid operation is further complicated by its ac nature, with real and reactive power flows and the need to closely maintain a constant frequency (23). Margins for generator failures must be provided through operational and planning reserves (24).”
California’s need to dump millions of dollars of excess renewable energy now and in the future is the result of the politically contrived climate alarmist schemes lead by Governor Brown and Senate Leader Kevin de Leon that reflect ignorance of how the state’s electric system grid reliability and stability must be maintained and the key fact that renewable energy resources are unable to provide these ignored requirements.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The flip side of this is that they have to build natural gas turbine peaker plants that can fire up almost instantaneously when the renewable energy supply doesn’t meet demand. They have to pay the peaker plant operators to be on standby whether they actually produce power or not.
They are replacing the gas peaker plants with grid scale batteries which respond much more quickly
Charged how?
“Grid scale batteries”? Where, and at what cost? Currently, grid scale batteries are in the class of plumbing cattle flatulence to burn in turbines–something one can name, and discuss, but does not really exist.
I believe what has happened is people such as griffie have read SF stories from writers such as Heinlein who spoke of “shipstone” power storage systems and think such is real. It is being hidden from them by evil corporations who only want to make money, as they force people to suffer for their entertainment of course! Leftists blithely ignore actual corruption from politicians and other hucksters calling themselves “scientists” all the while pushing the fantastical mirage of wind and solar saving the planet. Its all rather funny, in a sad and pathetic way.
One point Heinlein made in “Friday” was that that sort of power storage would be so valuable that the company controlling the technology would be so valuable as to control almost everything else.
Thanks, I could not think of the title and refuse to stoop to using google for something I should know!
In Ca. they ARE testing the technology to see if the Grid Scale Batteries will work but there is currently no plan for replacement as far as I know. But…rechargeable batteries have a useable lifespan then must be replaced, often producing waste materials considered toxic. Can’t throw them away after charging/discharging them 5000 times and their effectiveness decays. Now instead of having a 9v to eliminate, you have thousands of pounds of batteries to do something with
Much like Tesla batteries. So clean. So efficient. So environmentally friendly. Except for all the toxic waste. Oops.
Griff,
You have no idea of the scale needed. Fairbanks, Alaska has a battry “pack” just to be up a few minutes, long enough to start the power diesels if the main supply is broken. A matter of life and death at -40 degrees in winter…
Have a view at that small pack for a relative small town:
And no mention of how often the “batteries” that comprise that system have to be replaced? Hmmm, wonder why that detail is missing?
Old inefficient gas plants perhaps, like the ones utilities kept online for much too long while refusing to take power from more efficient merchant power providers with combine cycle turbine plants.
“They are replacing the gas peaker plants with grid scale batteries which respond much more quickly”
Another flat out lie.
Currently there is no such thing as a grid-scale battery, and if there ever is one, it will be about as environmentally damaging a thing as can be dreamed up.
catweazle666: “Currently there is no such thing as a grid-scale battery”
…
https://www.energy-storage.news/blogs/sponsored-ngks-nas-grid-scale-batteries-in-depth#dismiss
….
“NGK’s NAS batteries are currently being used by 190 locations in Japan, North America, Middle East and Europe, providing an overall capacity of 530MW and 3700MWh for load levelling, renewable energy stabilisation, transmission and distribution network management, in microgrids and for ancillary services.”
So, according to your link they are NOT “grid scale”, just single facility systems, which with vast amounts of money, resources and the production of huge amounts of toxic waste, might, possibly, maybe be upscaled to store electricity for small region application. Okey dokey then.
How come Tesla isn’t taking the surplus for free and storing it in their batteries until needed? California could pay for this service and still come out ahead of where they are now. Oh wait, that is why the article is in the paper, to put another bandaid over the last bandaid.
They are.
As the roll out of batteries continues, then more of the surplus will be absorbed. work in progress…
There, FIFY.
Work in progress=colossal waste chasing alchemy and perpetual motion machines.
Griff, I assume you are referring to lithium ion batteries like Tesla uses? One problem though, a study out of Europe by engineers revealed that the manufacture of tesla batteries and the required components produced the same amount of GHG’s as 8 years of gasoline powered driving.
Griff – Here are photos of typical grid-scale battery banks, with today’s technology.
End-of-service-life battery wastes? As opposed to medium-level rad waste, or fly-ash?
Which technology provides the most energy, at the least cost, with the least amount of environmental impact – all impact all things considered???
Awaiting your insights…across the pond…
Regards,
MCR
Michael, advanced economies can afford a little bit of uneconomic stupidity. Its when one gets to a lot of uneconomic stupidity that the wheels come off the politically popular bandwagon.
@Michael C
That appears to be the storage system at Mira Loma
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3161755/sustainable-it/the-worlds-largest-battery-storage-substation-is-now-live.html
Based on the information in the article, cost was probably about $2/watt-hr or a total of $160 million for the 80MW-hr facility. Now, a typical commercial generating station is going to be rated at 1,000 MW. This baby will store the total output the plant generates in…4.8 minutes. So, lets build ten battery banks. Now we’re up to 48 minutes of storage for a cost of $1.6 billion, which is, uhhhh, the cost of another 1,000 MW power plant. And the batteries will have to be replaced in 10 years or so, maybe a 50% cost, while the power plant has a useful life of 60 years. Y’all can do the math, I’m sure. Can someone explain to me why this is a brilliant solution?
It is a brilliant solution for politicians, NGOs, bureaucrats, equipment manufacturers, etc. For rate payers and tax payers it is a real insult, D.J.
This “problem” is why the CAISO Energy Imbalance was created – to spread the renewable footprint – so CA could off-load their renewables when they don’t have enough demand. This happens primarily in the spring and the fall, but this year’s hydro surplus in the west is making it longer and bigger in impact.
Renewables are almost never economic without a huge grid to sink them in. And even then, the cost to integrate (back up spin, voltage regulation, etc…) can kill them under most conditions. Renewable development (Excluding hydro, but then again, hydro was usually bankrolled by the Feds and will have an “infinite operating life” to pay for) is driven primarily by a renewable portfolio law or an IPP that can use the tax credits. If the wind credits are not renewed, you’re going to see wind development DIE after 2018.
But still, our legislatures push more green policy. Because there are very LOUD people advocating it. And who wouldn’t want to save the polar bears (I blame Coca Cola.) Most people, if explained about the cost, would pause. Especially if you ask them if they are not only willing to increase their bill for green power, but increase it to cover the low income people who can’t cover the first increase. There’s a reason why there’s a concept of “free ridership” in economics – the folks who can, usually do – without the incentive.
As for CA’s problem – the rates there are so flipping high, you can pay for a rooftop solar system in almost 3 years or less. So it makes phenomenal sense to install them. Hence the duck curve getting deeper and deeper and deeper.
IT kind of makes you wonder what Tesla and the other Solar developers are really doing – if the electric rates go up, they have a growing market for their product. They may say they are advocating for the environment, but they are really just asking the Utility commissions to set rules that create a business model so they can make money.
And frankly, the desire to spread the false manifesto of running the grid on renewable (I hate propaganda wars) is 150% all about creating a market for battery power/ electric storage. If you take the fossil option off the table, then the investor owned utilities have No Other Option but to pursue a renewable investment paired with storage.
So you see ALOT of misinformed people pushing renewables because SAVE THE PLANET and then the sly businessmen doing the same because they want a law that pushes a business opportunity. ITs a difficult concept to explain to your average person, so the PUC faces a media backlash if they do anything but SAVE THE PLANET. (See Commissioner Noble’s failure to be reappointed in NEvada when he had the audacity to point out that the rooftop industry didn’t make a compelling case for rooftop solar.)
The large customers (Microsoft in Washington is the latest) are taking their toys and getting out because the existing models don’t work.
And as a similar thread – someone needs to do a WUWT post on California’s ISO preparation for the Solar Eclipse – talk about painting yourself in the corner. LOL.
GridTrader, you raise a lot of great issues. One niggling point: Federal hydroelectric developments do not “… have an “infinite operating life” to pay for …” as you suggested.
You will see maybe a 100 year life for the basic structural elements, but things like electrical systems, generators, mechanical features, etc. will have various lives of maybe 15 to 36 to 50 years. The costs allocated to power production are paid by the purchasers. Some of the costs are also allocated to things like irrigation, recreation, etc.
It is a fact that when the Federal hydroelectric systems were developed, their produced power was more expensive than existing alternatives for Investor Owned Utility (IOU) systems existing in the more populated areas. The newly created small Rural Electric Administration (REA) Cooperatives bought the higher cost power that the IOUs wouldn’t because they didn’t have any viable options.
It became a political issue decades later when new, alternative IOU power projects became more expensive than the older Federal hydroelectric projects. It resulted in some compromises in the power allocations to the REA cooperatives (more voters in the big cites). The equity among the ultimate customers, regardless of power suppliers (IOU or REA coops), was the issue. The compromises continue.
I’m confused, why can’t the smart meters control the inflow of residential solar power?
smart meters arent actually very smart
Well, systems now being trialled in Germany allows trading and combination of solar power without worrying about grid constraint…
This is ground breaking stuff!
https://www.energy-storage.news/news/blockchain-and-batteries-will-assist-german-grid-operator-in-integrating-re
The grid is not the constraint…the grid is being destroyed by “renewables”…speak to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Great. The terrorists just have to hack the computer and we’re all toast.
Griff,
You really have no idea about the scales involved… From the article:
an “excellent alternative” to conventional power plants in providing grid-balancing services at the unveiling of a 10MW lithium-ion storage system in Holland in early 2016.
10 MW in a country using 15,000 MW in mid-winter will replace a 500 MW STEG plant or 250 MW gas turbine to maintain the grid balance??? I think that a spinning reserve will do a better job…
And you will need a lot of household batteries per household to do the same…
“You really have no idea
about the scales involved…Smart meters are about energy rationing, nothing more nothing less.
Smart meters are about rationing – but only if they work! Having been a victim of a compulsory meter change-over in Johannesburg, I can tell you that if there is a dedicated company that remotely reads the meters, and they are fired by the municipality, then you get ‘estimated’ readings for the rest of your life! Add to this the problem that the Bluetooth Tx/Rx devices in the meters all went sour at the same time, and jammed all the Bluetooth frequencies in our suburb for two weeks, and you KNOW you have a problem. Just think – how many ‘remotes’ are there in your life? And all running on the same frequency band!
I would be very surprised to learn power on the Pacific DC Intertie is sending power to Oregon/Washington or even if that is possible. There used to be a dashboard for that energy link that would show what the draw is. I just can’t imagine it has fallen much.
It is technically a two-way street. How much flows in each direction is another issue.
i’m still trying to figure out if this is fake news or real, —
So much for Green jobs with the cost of these unreliables-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/sa-power-prices-kill-green-business/news-story/7c256127ad05c1e7333ca1a889b14ab3
Our Green overlords are beginning to panic as they run out of huff and puff-
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2017/june
Mind you with our Great Whites climate change does have its plusses-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/worlds-biggest-shark-the-megalodon-was-three-times-size-of-great-white-so-what-killed-it-off/ar-BBDk67P
“…unless action is taken to better manage the excess electricity…”
This is the money quote.
The problem of generating electricity ‘out of synch with demand’ was noted in the early days by the Greens. Their proposal was simple – demand must be managed to match the ‘green’ supply.
For some reason this is NEVER mentioned by the press, or any commentators. ‘Smart’ meters were planned to enable variable pricing so that demand could be ‘shaped’, as they call it. I think this feature of green power – that it will be rationed depending on its availability, should be talked about more often and more widely advertised…
It isn’t a problem in the connected western European grids, because there’s a joint market and the renewables output is known and sets the price a day ahead in the european day ahead electricity market.
And your evidence of this mechanism is?
There’s a “day market” in Europe for renewables? Then why are the shysters here demanding 20 year increasing cost contracts for renewables? Let’s get rid of that practice immediately.
The European grid works NOW because you’ve got nuclear in France and coal in Poland to help you out. If those, er, “fall off the grid”, no one will be happy with the result.
More porkies…
Like every socialized endeavor (e.g. healthcare) the consumers and their demand must be controlled. Politicians and bureaucrats cannot manage nor innovate effectively.
This sounds like the (crazy) Denmark Deal.
Denmark has a surplus of wind, which it cannot use on windy days. So it gives it away to Scandinavia, who can easily throttle back their hydro. And when there is no wind, Denmark buys back that saved wind-hydro energy at a much higher price. So Scandinavia is laughing all the way to the bank, while Denmark has the highest energy costs in Europe.
I imagine Arizona is doing much the same – throttling back the Hoover Dam, and selling that saved solar-hydro energy back to California on cloudy days – for a huge profit. Sometimes, it is nice to have dumb neighbours, who want to give their money away.
Ralph
I’m confused, why can’t the smart meters control the inflow of residential solar power?
It could be, by installing a switch controlled by signals over the power line from the utility.
A anti – anti-islanding mod could be done on the inverter at the same time to make the household more resilient during more frequent grid failures. (so the house would retain power without endangering grid personnel)
To encourage take up of such a device, simply triple the tax on utility bills until said device is fitted by an approved installer.
I suspect people will not be happy!!!!!
Also, this whole thing arises because of the ‘must buy’ clause in renewable supply contracts. Remove the clause and solar and wind will cease to be a problem from the oversupply issue.
True Steve R, and no more solar or wind projects will be built, because they are highly uneconomic without the “must buy” clause – the utility must buy the power, even when there is no demand it – only a shyster could think this was ever a good idea.
In the future, the public will have to pay to decommission these monsters, because their owners will go bankrupt and leave a mess to clean up.
Alan, this is not a negative response.
How does one go bankrupt with guaranteed profits?
Corruption and graft bleed off the money faster than any “guaranteed profits” can bring it in.
I don’t think early decommissioning is in the cards for existing wind and solar generation, Allan. They will be given up in bankruptcy at prices that reflect their true value as intermittent power sources.
Steve, we may be talking past each other. To clarify:
If the “must buy” clause is removed, and/or the subsidies (several times the cost of reliable, dispatchable power) cease, typical solar and wind projects will instantly become uneconomic.
Then they will go bankrupt, and will deteriorate – they require considerable maintenance. Then who will decommission them? Either they will remain as broken-down eyesores, or the ratepayer or the taxpayer will pay for the cleanup. That means you and me – everyone.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/south-australias-blackout-apparently-triggered-by-the-violent-fluctuations-from-the-snowtown-wind-farms/comment-page-1/#comment-2311111
In Southern Alberta, we have some of the most consistent winds on the planet, due to the Crow’s Nest Pass, a gap in the Rocky Mountains to the west. Wind power is (or was) paid 20 cents/KWh and receives this 24/7, even when the wind power is not needed – then we give the power to neighbouring states for free. Reliable coal or gas-fired power typically gets 2 to 4 cents per KWh. Do the math.
Re backup, see below. Substitution Capacity is the key factor, and it is probably about 5% in Germany in 2016. That means they have to install 20 units of wind power to permanently replace 1 unit of coal or gas-fired power. As you can imagine, the economics are dismal.
Regards, Allan
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/27/exxon-stands-up-to-the-green-bullies/comment-page-1/#comment-2154602
[excerpt]
On Grid-Connected Wind and Solar Power:
Wind Power is what warmists typically embrace – trillions of dollars have been squandered on worthless grid-connected wind power schemes that require life-of-project subsidies and drive up energy costs.
Some background on grid-connected wind power schemes:
The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
and
Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
The same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
This was obvious to us decades ago.
Whoa, then where’s all that electricity from the Barack Obama Legacy WInd Plant’s 1000 turbines going to go? That was for California. That was the plan. Or so we were told. I’m starting to suspect this is just a tax subsidy grab that the morons in Wyoming approved for the benefit of Colorado’s billionaire. If California has too much energy from weather, the turbines will only result in tax breaks, no electricity.
The LAT link has been hijacked: https://weteachsports.com/2017/06/22/california-invested-heavily-in-solar-power-now-theres-so-much-that-other-states-are-sometimes-paid-to-take-it/
Please elaborate. Why does a link that says “LA Times” go to weteachsports.com? It feels like bait-and-switch.
I really like (NOT, because I’m paying for it, twice) the fact that the state is paying AZ to take power already they paid homeowners to produce.
California should export that energy to Mexico, for free.
I wonder if this changes the idea of putting solar panels on “The Wall”. I guess it would work, but we would need more transmission lines since we can’t power LA with it. Any states out there short on power?
I thought that was to power the electrified barbed wire along the bottom? 😉
Sheri, that is just the administration having fun at lefty expense. I can just picture all those imbeciles locked in a loop function, “wall bad…renewables good” and repeat.
I recall news the Germany has similar problems. Tell me again why I should pay to build more fields of wind turbines when I’m not using all of that power when the wind is blowing and when full base load generation is still required but must compete with wind at give away prices. Seems like useless subsidization requiring subsidization of base load generation..
Here, the wind went from under 5 mph to 35 mph and back down in less than 2 hours. So wind went from NO electricity to FULL capacity to NO electricity in 2 hours. How can that possibly not destabilize the grid? A child can see that.
Details, details. The advocacy groups never get to such fine details and neither do the elected officials listening to them. (or taking orders)
“Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, …”
No true, this falls under the category of ‘if you tell a lie often enough some will believe’.
From wiki, “Carter joined the United States Navy after graduating high school, serving on nuclear submarines.”
Again, not true. There were no nuke ships in the navy while JC was serving. In fact JC does not have an engineering degree. JC is a nuke power school drop out when he left the navy to run the family farm.
I am an engineer with a mechanical engineering degree. I did serve in the nuclear navy. I even voted for him but only once.
In my opinion, Carter was an idiot. I do not think having an engineering degree would make a difference.
Over the years leftards have attacked me vociferously for pointing out those simple, historically accurate and easily found facts.
Ontario also dumps power. We need storage and long range transmission capabilities. Also hydro power should be considered as renewable and nuclear close to renewable.
RE: “We need storage”
“Storage” is a buzz-word that is tossed around like popcorn. In reality today, practical grid-scale electricity storage does not exist, with rare exceptions.
Pumped hydro storage rarely exists because most hydro projects have no large water reservoir at the bottom of the hydro dam.
Battery and other proposed storage schemes are uneconomic.
Offsets do exist – such as curtailing hydro power when the wind blows, and ramping it up when the wind stops – but then you are under-utilizing your hydro facility. The same offsets are done with gas-turbine power, but then you are under-utilizing your gas turbines.
The grid needs reliable, dispatchable power, not wildly varying power that fluctuates with wind speed or clouds.
Wind and solar power schemes need almost 100% conventional backup, and this makes them uneconomic.
Perhaps if battery-powered cars ever become commonplace, we can use them to create a distributed “super-battery”. Maybe some other ideas will work, but for now practical, economic grid-scale storage really does not really exist.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/wind-power-plug-pulled-in-illinois/
[excerpt]
Electric cars are now appearing in the marketplace, and they may succeed or fail, but there is no need for them to have the same range as a gas vehicle – most people seldom use the full range of their gasoline vehicles, instead using their cars almost exclusively for short daily commutes to and from work.
The key to using all these electric cars in a ‘super-battery” is that this application is essentially free (secondary use of the resource), which means that your economic argument about the high cost of batteries does not have much traction.
I still see great practical obstacles for the “super-battery” concept, and I use the term broadly, to include batteries, capacitors, recycled hydroelectric power, or whatever, and I doubt that a super-battery will become a practical reality in the next twenty years.
In conclusion:
Wind power is still an energy dog. I wrote this conclusion, with confidence, in newspaper articles in 2002 and 2003. A decade later, this energy dog still has fleas. Even if we overcome the fatal flaws of wind power’s highly intermittent power generation profile through the use of a “super-battery”, there is still the serious problem of bird and bat kill.
Grid-connected wind power is uneconomic and anti-environmental.
Let’s let the IT guy sum it up…
Moss: Overnumerousness!
This is nothing that a few grid-scale batteries would not fix.
And yes, there are grid-scale batteries. They work.
They are economic. And more are being installed each year.
see e.g. DOE Global Energy Storage Database at
http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects