Chris White Tech Reporter August 17, 2020 8:57 PM ET
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that the state’s transition away from fossil fuels is a contributing factor to the state’s rolling blackouts.
The elimination of fossil fuel products as a major form of energy production and the shift to solar power and other forms of green energy has led to what Newsom called “gaps” in the energy grid’s reliability, the Democratic governor said during a press conference Monday.
Newsom addressed the sudden loss of power many Californians experienced Saturday and Sunday during high temperatures.
“We are not backing off on that commitment,” Newsom said, referring to California’s push to transition away from oil and gas.
“In the process of the transition, in the process of shutting down, understandably, the desire and need to shut down polluting gas plants … comes the need to have more insurance, comes the need to recognize that there have been — by definition, demonstrably, in the last few days and what we expect over the next few days — gaps in terms of that reliability,” Newsom said.
The state’s energy system operator — California Independent System Operator (CAISO) — issued a Stage 3 emergency for the first time in 20 years, per a press statement CAISO posted Friday. Many citizens were required to conserve as much energy as possible while others were subject to rotating power outages due to heavy strain on the energy grid, CNN reported Monday.
“Collectively, energy regulators failed to anticipate this event and to take necessary actions to ensure reliable power to Californians,” Newsom wrote in a letter Monday to CAISO, CNN reported. “This cannot stand.” (RELATED: Here’s How State Regulators Played A Role In California’s Rolling Blackouts, Wildfires)
CAISO attributed the blackouts to the unexpected loss of a 470 megawatt power plant, as well as a loss of nearly 1,000 megawatts from wind power. The nonprofit’s emergency order allowed utilities to use backup energy to relieve pressure on a grid that relies primarily on a mixture of wind and solar power, along with hydro power.https://aff529feed2f91a49f5b59a2778570f0.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
“Near certain we’ll be forced to ask the utilities to cut off power to millions today to balance supply and demand. Today and tomorrow and perhaps beyond,” Steve Berberich, president and CEO of CAISO, said in a statement Monday before noting that the nonprofit corporation has repeatedly warned of a reliability gap and that the state will have to increase energy production.
Newsom said Monday that the transition from fossil fuels is a “moral and ethical imperative as it relates to the kind of world we’re going to leave, the kind of state and nation we’re going to leave for our kids and grandkids.”
Sierra Club and other activists met informally with Newsom’s administration in 2019 to discuss dramatically slashing the state’s oil production, The Los Angeles Times reported in April of that year.
“I’m taking a very pragmatic look at it, in scoping this,” Newsom told The LA Times in a 2019 interview. “It’s also an inclusive scoping because it includes people in the industry, that have jobs; communities that are impacted from an environmental justice prism but also from an economic justice prism.”
California has 72,000 oil wells and the oil industry supports 368,000 jobs in the Golden State, according to the Western States Petroleum Association.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Calling destroying and degrading nearly every aspect of modern existence ‘a moral and ethical imperative’ shows just how disconnected from reality these far left nut jobs have become. The moral and ethical imperative we face is to stop the abuse of science as the means of justifying a political agenda that can’t stand on its own merits.
Morality is an old-fashioned, inconvenient behavioral philosophy. With progress, we adopt the secular alternative, morality’s relativistic cousin “ethics”. Don’t harsh their mellow.
Morality isn’t a philosophy, n.n. It’s behavior that makes communitarians feel virtuous.
As it’s based in feelings, not philosophy, morality will countenance any extreme of behavior so long as it’s socially sanctioned.
An ethics based in Enlightenment Humanism is bounded, not relativistic.
They’re are both philosophies, studies, and standards of human behavior. The difference is that morality is observed in a universal frame of reference, and ethics is frame-based and a relativistic standard. The Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic quasi-religion/moral/ethical code is a prototypical example of the latter.
“The Pro-Choice,…etc., etc.,. No it’s not an example of ethics. The pro-choice group violates Enlightenment humanism by denying the objective case for the humanity of a conceptus.
Pro-choice, etc., is a subjectivist narrative; an exegetical elaboration of opportunistic assumptions. It’s not even a philosophy. It starts with the desired conclusion and works backwards.
I don’t spikka da ecohippie lingo. Can someone please ‘splain to this uninformed Midwesterner the meaning of “environmental justice”? Are the ecohippies including Hoomans in this, or is it only related to saving the trees for fire season fuels?
Just askin’. I like to be informed. 😉
Around here on the Mississippi, when an Asian Carp jumps in front of a water-skier and knocks him off his skis, we call that environmental justice.
Also, the biggest gap CA has to worry about is Gabbin’ Nuisance’s credibility gap.
Maybe the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) should be renamed Qalifornistan Unreliable Energy System Ogliarchy (QUESO) for their cheesy, south-of-the-border infrastructure.
Si?
It means ‘we’re making up an excuse to screw you’.
Environmental justice is something Billy Joe Jom Bob Clinton came up with in an executive order in the late 90s. Basically, it is a complaint against free market economics and the fact that both poor people and heavy industries like to buy land cheap. That tends to put them close together and expose the poor people to the effects of living close to industrial facilities.
“Newsom said Monday that the transition from fossil fuels is a “moral and ethical imperative as it relates to the kind of world we’re going to leave, the kind of state and nation we’re going to leave for our kids and grandkids.””
It’s not an imperative if it will have no effect on GLOBAL CO2 levels, which will keep rising relentlessly due to emissions from developing nations’ move increasing use of coal. The money spent on constructing Unreliable power sources too mitigate CO2 should instaed be spent on adating to the local effects of AGW.
He is not disconnected from reality. He is fulfilling the prime directive of progressiveism. The lower orders must be impoverished, humiliated, and demoralized. They must taste the lash and love it.
Newsom: ““…Collectively, energy regulators failed to anticipate this event and to take necessary actions to ensure reliable power to Californians,” Newsom wrote in a letter Monday”.
Yup, a good honest politician will immediately blame the agency he helped set up as soon as its impossible premise fails. Doesn’t matter that the relevant information was 9gW + .1gW = 10gW of demand. We can always by more electricity off the interconnectors when needed.
Unfortunately the BRILLIANT idea doesn’t work when the out of state supplies can stay at home taking care of business when needed. I am sure NONE of the contracts have a “must deliver” clause in them.
It’s not the Governor’s fault, or his rubber stamp super majority Democrat legislature, that the electric power delivery system is a mess. It’s the regulator’s fault (doing what the legislature tells them to do), and the power companies fault (doing what the regulator’s tell them to do). The obvious solution is to abolish the regulator’s role and defund (bankrupt) the power and renewable generator companies. Follow the same progressive logic that says, when crime increases decrease crime prevention. State ownership and control of all generating capacity and the grid should be expected as the ultimate solution. Management will be by a newly formed organization that puts social and environmental justice ahead of corporate profits. Please note the absence of a /sarc. I’m serious.
Wrong-o, Philo! There are schedules for even “economy energy” deliveries. CA utilities also contract for the output of specific generating plants. It is very complex, but supplies cannot be willy nilly cut off.
It’s Green, not green. It’s Green technology, and green, renewable drivers. It’s a Green blight, and trampling green fields. It’s gaps in shine and angle, and gaps in viable wind gusts. It’s outsourced and obfuscated environmental hazards. A few missing links. #SaveTheBats
“In the process of the transition, in the process of shutting down, understandably, the desire and need to shut down polluting gas plants … comes the need to have more insurance, comes the need to recognize that there have been — by definition, demonstrably, in the last few days and what we expect over the next few days — gaps in terms of that reliability,” Newsom said.
“Stay away from run-on sentences,” my 7th grade English teacher said.
Gordon I have no idea what he is saying run 🏃 n sentence or not.
I’m not sure it’s really a run-on. There is a confusing array of noun phrases, verbal complements, and compound elements lacking explicit conjunctions, etc. But given the simple subjects ‘need’…’need’ and the main verbs ‘come’…’come’, I think it could be conventionally diagrammed. “Newsom said” left for the student to do as an exercise….
… left for the student:
Newsom said, what we have is a power system FUBAR.
It’s a word salad.
Why not just settle for “inarticulate”?
That’s the point. He’s saying a lot of words, meaningless words with a virtuous tone to deflect the attention of nearly every clueless Kalifornian from the fact that he f’d up. He didn’t really say that did he. There are “gaps”, and missing “insurance”, not “Well, frankly we were told this would happen and we ignored the experts and listened to the idiots”.
What’s worse, he will STILL listen to the idiots.
Can’t disagree. : > )
Translation: “Yes, our green energy program is the reason you have no air conditioning in 100 degree weather.”
He’s holding back from saying what he’s come to realize. There is a “gap” in ensuring adequate power. It’s a way of saying nothing bad about the pickle policy has created. Having gone too far in his critique, he is reassuring the green guys by saying he’s not backing off of getting rid of ‘polluting’ fuels, but an old poker player knows that’s what he is trying to stop himself from thinking.
All the Dem run states and cities are screwed up and politicians (normally) have a strong self preservation instinct, especially in a big big election year.
Newsom’s decades politician-trained brain is tying to real-time filter and translate normal English thoughts into Liberal political-speak gibberish.
Breaking what he said down:
“In the process of the transition,” = In getting rid of fossil fueled power
” in the process of shutting down,” = and eliminating reliable baseload generation
“understandably,” = and obvious to a 3rd grader
” the desire and need to shut down polluting gas plants” = we are serving our GreenSlime masters by eliminating their investment’s competing resource
“comes the need to have more insurance” = we need also to cover our ass from public backlash
“comes the need to recognize that there have been by definition, demonstrably” = that is obvious to even a Democrat voter
“in the last few days and what we expect over the next few days” = last week and this week
” gaps in terms of that reliability” = because we failed to provide reliable electricity.
Putting it together in plain English now.
What he said:
“In getting rid of fossil fueled electricity and eliminating reliable baseload generation, and obvious to a 3rd grader, we are serving our GreenSlime masters by eliminating their investment’s competing resource… we need also to cover our ass from the public backlash that is obvious to even a Democrat voter last week and this week, because we failed to provide reliable electricity.”
More of what he said is translated as, “Yes, we eff’d up big time, but it’s not going to better ever, so suck it up California and get used it. We own your ass as long as you live in this state.”
Joel that is the most excellent response ever!
Hillary was more efficient with slants and diversions by just blaming the deplorables and moving on.
“82 is the new 78, folks.” They will start billing extra for “peak power over a certain amount”, if you fail to reduce your usage. It’s never their fault; it’s always yours.
“Based on our emotional & political desires, we have defined a need to shut down existing energy supplies. We are doing this because, again based on emotion, we have defined those energy sources as polluting. In following through with our desires, we have ignored the reasonable safety factor that should be associated with energy production & delivery. We have actually limited ourselves to such an extent that we can not even insure consistent, common, day to day service.
Having endured Newsom’s daily droning sessions for past 6 months, it’s become apparent to me – and to most news reporters too – that he deliberately spouts these pointless nonsense filled word salads to lull everyone to a drowsy daze, so that he can appear to be busily doing something while really doing nothing at all.
” A gap in renewable energy”
The only gap is the gaping chasm between the governor’s eco-dreams and the realities of base load power.
Hopefully their high prices and reliability record –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/18/green-california-has-the-nations-worst-power-grid/
will deter other states from blundering away their energy infrastructures.
Some swiss cheese lacunae in people’s brains as well.
We’ve been doing this stupid thing and that has caused gaps in terms of reliability. To ameliorate the situation we’re committed to doing way more of that stupid thing.
Or, how about:
Newsome is insane and he isn’t the only one. The inmates are truly running the madhouse.
The gap is between the ears of the of renewable energy Nazis.
““Near certain we’ll be forced to ask the utilities to cut off power to millions today to balance supply and demand. Today and tomorrow and perhaps beyond,””
Cutting off the demand is not how you deal with Supply and Demand in the real world. It means you are Draconianly restructuring your supply and demand. Poof, problem solved, we just removed a huge chunk of the demand.
This is patent insanity and will cost lives, property, and livelihoods. Criminal in essence and performance.
+ 1k
There is also the gaping chasm between his ears by the sound of it.
The grid challenge is balancing economics, reliability and public responsibility. If California want to make a conscious choice to elevate public responsibility (as they see it -lowering CO2), that’s a legitimate goal. But it was a false promise/hope that they could achieve this without serious economic and reliability impacts. Those arguing green energy was cleaner, cheaper and better (Or only a little more costly with addressable reliability impacts) are the guilty parties in this travesty.
Why is lowering CO2 a legitimate goal?
It’s not a goal I endorse, but there are “legitimate” sources claiming that CO2 could have significant adverse effects.
The argument that green renewable could provide provide significant power to the grid with reliability at anything approaching an economic costs was a fantasy and those claiming it could either were dishonest, lacked expertise or were gravely deluded. Those claiming cost and reliability would not be significantly impacted by significant green additions are the most guilty by my estimation. Many of those were in fact climate scientists operating way outside their skill set.
Sober analysis should have weighed the risks of CO2 against reasonable cost estimates and an understanding of the reliability impacts.
Those claiming that CO2 might have significant adverse effects have been proven wrong. They have NOTHING but erroneous computer models on which to base their claims.
“… but there are “legitimate” sources claiming that CO2 could have significant adverse effects.
No there aren’t. Those sources are not legitimate. Climate modelers are not competent to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
And those models do not have the resolution to detect the effect, if any at all, of human CO2 emissions on the environment.
The IPCC literally do not know what they are talking about.
The whole AGW thing is the hotly incompetent leading the cynically opportunistic.
Beginning in the late 1970’s, during Governor Brown 1.0, many of us started to formally and forcefully inform CA politicians and bureaucrats that this would happen if they didn’t back off the Green power insanity. The early CA 2000 failures and their costly band aids were just a preview of the current situation. Without investment in large hydro, FFs or nuclear, CA and the surrounding states’ grids will collapse regularly.
The Pacific Northwest has run out of cheap hydro to support the Western grid. The next extended drought will break the system’s back, which will be blamed on CAGW by those creating the problem. Evidence? Newsom’s mealymouthed lies and lack of a serious, consumer-friendly response to the crisis.
Yes, we all must remember that it has been disproven that CO2 is the driver of climate change. Yet the idiot lemmings keep chasing CO2 reduction.
“Woke” is just another word for “stupid.”
““I’m taking a very pragmatic look at it, in scoping this,” Newsom told The LA Times in a 2019 interview. “It’s also an inclusive scoping because it includes people in the industry, that have jobs; communities that are impacted from an environmental justice prism but also from an economic justice prism.””
Total and complete libtard B*** S**t. Typical double speak and touchy feely crap that means nothing. “Scoping” is not an intellectual activity, let alone “inclusive scoping.”
You could train a chat bot to generate these Green word salads, and the output would have just as much meaningful content as Newsom.
Maybe Newsom is really a chat bot.
Isn’t “scoping” what’s done in a rectal exam?
The second to last paragraph of the post reads, “‘I’m taking a very pragmatic look at it, in scoping this,’ Newsom told The LA Times in a 2019 interview. ‘It’s also an inclusive scoping because it includes people in the industry, that have jobs; communities that are impacted from an environmental justice prism but also from an economic justice prism.'”
It would have been a more-realistic last sentence had he used the word PRISON instead of “prism”.
Stay safe and healthy, all.
Regards,
Bob
Can someone more woke than me explain what “environmental justice prisms” and “economic just prisms” are?
You use a prism to divide light. You use “___________ justice” to divide a nation.
Rainbows
The Rainbow excludes black, brown, and feature the shredded remains of white.
Shared responsibility: progressive prices, marginal availability. That said, social (i.e. relativistic)… environmental justice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.
I feel sorry for the poor realists stuck in that state, though. Leave if you can, folks.
“Newsom said Monday that the transition from fossil fuels is a “moral and ethical imperative as it relates to the kind of world we’re going to leave, the kind of state and nation we’re going to leave for our kids and grandkids.”
I simply don’t care how much more wind and solar they add they won’t have any more energy available when the sun doesn’t shine and wind doesn’t blow. Zero = Zero.
The *only* reliable energy they will have is fossil fuels and nuclear. And they are dead set against using either.
The kind of state and nation Newsome and the Dems are going to leave for our kids and grandkids is third world status.
There is no turning back for CA.
Renewables are here to stay and grow. Farewell hydrocarbons.
Blackouts in CA are the new normal with knock on effects on the whole western connector.
So unnecessary.
Shutting down NG gen plants without a plan to expand nuclear capacity to meet California’s energy demand just won’t pass any sort of competent and reasonable engineering analysis. Vast solar and wind farms and Musky batteries just don’t cut it. The only possible conclusion is that buying electric power from out of state is what “the plan” is. Californians will pay bigly but the technically deficient eco camp will feel good that their state CO2 emissions are much lower.
Engineering doesn’t seem to matter to the politicians. And at some point, I suspect that even the other states will become either unable or unwilling to sell more power to CA.
The more renewables grow the worst it will be. Kind of like cancer.
The root cause of the renewable mess is willfully uniformed (ignorant) voters, and with our failed education system the voters get dumber every year. Yes, there is no turning back for Cali. But the weather is great..well except for the 27 wildfires in our mis-managed forests it’s a little “hazy”.
green think….
it’s not working…..we need more of it
We could use some more cowbell.
“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
….just like more socialism….
He’s claiming that the problem isn’t green power, it’s that it’s not green enough.
Nothing that a few million more windmills can’t solve.
He wants more cowbell.
Like Griff he doesn’t get if the wind isn’t blowing doesn’t matter how many turbines you have, same as the number of solar panels you have doesn’t matter at night.
I scanned comments to see if someone said this already. Basically, it’s not the fault of the green power, cuz you fools didn’t contribute enough of your hard-earned money (at gunpoint) to make it work!
There should be criminal charges against the climate activists responsible for imposing a technology still in development onto the public with fear based activism. Fear based sales implies the item does not have a market based on merit or utility.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-46r
“a technology still in development”
“The new design stores heat generated by excess electricity from solar or wind power in large tanks of white-hot molten silicon, and then converts the light from the glowing metal back into electricity when it’s needed. ”
I found no numbers to describe how big the pot would need to be to provide California with electricity for, say, 6 hours per day for 3 weeks. Would something about the size of the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir work?
How many wind turbines will be needed to heat that?
What happens when that liquid hardens and has to be re-heated?
Would basalt work as well as silicon? Silicon is abundant in Earth’s crust, but pure it is not.
Good point. Thank you. There are also some safety issues discussed in the literature. The technology is under development and not ready for implementation.
Seems to me the storage time would be limited, too. That heat will dissipate over time, so the energy store will need to be constantly renewed. Do they know what the storage limits are, and the losses over time?
In one of my 2 solar design classes some 40 years ago, the professor, who was also a registered engineer as well as holding a full-time design job and was principal of the firm, told us of a trouble shooting for a Tennessee school that demanded so much storage (for a solar hot water system) the installed solar panels could never get it up to temperature. *tee-hee*. They saved the installation by disconnecting some 75% of the tanks, then finally they could make it work.
Sounds like they may well have the same problem with this glorious idea.
“… converts the light from the glowing metal back into electricity …” Stone whoever wrote or pre-reviewed that.
Normally, it is ordinary table salt that is used to store heat by melting it with surplus electric power, but silicon is presumably similar, but with a higher melting point (1414.C) and a wide liquid phase range. Salt is quite corrosive, so maybe silicon is more benign. Metals like lead or sodium have also been suggested, but those are more environmentally dangerous. Whatever else they do, the ‘green’ lobby can’t promote lithium ion batteries because of the dubious moral background to their components’ extraction – i.e. child labour in Congo mining cobalt metal.
In UK, we are trialing liquid air as a storage medium, which uses surplus electricity to cool atmospheric air, with water vapour, CO2 and methane frozen out, then stored under pressure. When required, the air is fed to a simple turbine/generator. Looks to be a good solution for grid-scale (MWh) storage over periods of a week or more, with indefinite cycle life.
Still in development? Modern states like Germany have been using substantial amounts of renewables for decades… the first offshore wind farm has already been dismantled at the end of its 25 year life…
Hey Griffiepoo,
Tell us about the Franco-German interconnector, and how French nuclear keeps the lights on in Germany.
Tell us also about how the enormous electricity prices there are pushing hundreds of thousands of Germans into fuel poverty.
Don’ t leave out Norway, Poland, the Czech Republic and Austria. Germany’s grid is propped up in all directions, both to cover shortfalls and soak up excess when the renewable generation fails to match demand by more than the capabilities of Germany’s remaining thermal generators.
Indeed, Wind power has been around for centuries, and it’s still not fit for the purpose of powering a modern society. No unreliable power source is. At best it’s a supplement to a reliable power source, not a replacement, never will be.
Griff, you really need to learn how to use a full stop instead of an ellipsis to terminate a sentence. It gives the impression that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about.
And we are yet to see a significant drop in their CO2 emissions. Why would that be?
In 2020 the German Grid has been exteremely fortunate. In january, february and March when demand was in excess of 80 GW at peak times it was pretty windy in Northern Europe and wind was contributing 50% of demend some days, Solar pretty much zero. Thanks to Covid 19 during June, July and August demand had dropped by 15% rarely getting above 70GW (I’m assuming demand and output pretty much balanced) So solar compensated for 9 or 10 weeks of low wind. But Germany now has invested in two unreliable and unpredictable sources of electricity capable of supplying 50% demand at peak output but not continuously thereby requiring an investment in a third source also capable of 50%.
In the UK despite an investment in wind and solar; gas, nuclear and biomass (burning wood is not green or renewable) have been suplying 75% of demand. and the French and Dutch interconnectors have been matching wind for much of the time. UK demand is about 40% of Germany’s. The UK output from wind last went over 25% of installed capacity on 5th August. An important point about the UK is that domestic heating and cooking is predominantly by gas and has been since Methusalah was a boy, first coal gas and then Natural gas. The zero carbon plan must mean a six fold increase in electricity use., something like 120-150GW (30GW currently) , at current 10% output for wind 1500GW installed wind would cover it, say 10MW turbines means 15000 onshore turbines, for an unstable grid.
Griff you’re on the wrong planet.
The “modern state” of the future will have sustained, high electricity prices and efficient means of not talking about its shortcomings in the context of extra grid costs and reliance on other markets to keep up appearances. It will use a common currency to limit competition from its southern neighbors and export machinery to the faster growing fossil fuel countries of the world. Don’t forget to cheat on diesel fuel economy as a means to an end in the future modern state.
Griff,
The only reason that Deutschland has electrical power in its grid is because it is connected to French nuclear plants and Polish coal fired plants. The Energiewende has been a disastrous failure, but it has given Germany the highest electricity costs on the planet.
Back in California, it did not cool off much last night, so the AC will be running earlier and longer. This will almost certainly mean that CAISO will need to have rolling blackouts this evening.
Germany: 0.33 US$/kW-hr
France: 0.17
US_ 0.13
2018 data
Misleading comment, griff. Averaged year round (to date in 2020, Germany gets more power from from lignite burning (dirty brown coal, the most polluting source of energy on the planet), nuclear, natural gas, and hard coal (total 135 TWhr) than wind and solar (119 TWhr). Some months when it isn’t windy or sunny lignite burning is the largest single source of Germany’s electricity production (like March, 2019) which can make Germany one of the most polluting countries per capita in the world. You call that “modern”?
Seems like a perfect time to refuel Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Newsome wants to fill the renewable”gaps” with battery storage. But’
Even the most optimistic (lying through their green teeth) battery storage promoters shouldn’t be taken seriously when projecting Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) at less than $200/ kw.hr. ($200,000/mw.hr, $200 Million/1000 mw.hr. Getting through the 3 PM – 9 PM peak requires $200mm X 6 hrs for every 1,000 mw of demand = $1.2 billion. (I have no idea what current real world prices are for storage, but my hunch is that it’s about $600/kw.hr = $7.2 billion for 6 hours of 1,000 mw demand….give it up).
SA Horndale battery was about AUD80M/129MWh several years ago = AUD620/kWh capacity = about USD400/kWh capacity.
I would expect new projects to get closer to USD145/kWh + USD220/kW depending on location, grid connections, bulk discounts etc. The actual cost of batteries may be 40% to 45% of the total project cost for 1.25kWh per 1kW max output. YMMV
1000 MW average demand for 6hrs using <80% of full cycle, 95% eff inverters, 9% network loss, using target prices shown above = USD1659million per 1000MW demand
Using 7014MWh of a 9352MWh battery array, Inverters etc with a total of 1375MW max output before network losses (capacity for 1250MW peak).
If charging is 96% efficient, you need 7306MWh from another source to recharge them, it may be worse depending distance from energy source and additional losses.
The 8% to 16% network losses apply to all sources of power but it's sometimes hard to know when or not it's included in public figures.
10-12%/yr cost to run = USD 166 to 199M/yr cost to finance/ROI/management/maintenance (maybe more)
6000MWh/day*365
=USD 75.8 to 90.9/MWh output before adding cost of power when recharging. Need upto 1.22x the price of input power MWh to account for losses (pay for 7306MWh to get 6000MWh to customers).
Offpeak lows of USD40/MWh becomes a cost average of 124.6 to 139.7 USD/MWh (eg. expects daily peaks above USD150/MWh * 6hrs).
Government incentives or grants can help but it's still the taxpayers who have to ultimately pay (one way or another). Batteries are nett consumers of electricity and generate nothing by themselves. Relies on excess solar PV & wind to recharge to be green.
Tygus, I’m Dennis with the 7:PM posting immediately before you at 9:PM. You have many times more knowledge about this subject. Does the USD 1659 million per 1000 MW include cost to run
($180/Mw nominal) and cost of recharging ($130/Mw nominal). Note: Battery promoters will cost the recharging at $0.00 Mw.hr claiming that the power would otherwise be wasted so it has no value.
you report 1000 MW average demand for 6hrs using <80% of full cycle, 95% eff inverters, 9% network loss, using target prices shown above = USD 1659 million per 1000 mW demand.
$1.7 billion /1000 mW for 6 hrs peak demand * 4 (/cali Governor reports a 4,000 mW "Renewable gap" = $6.8 billion +$0.18 B cost to run + $0.13 B power purchase = $7.11B (comparable to my $7.2 B).
Tygus, Here’s another note on storage costs. Big difference between 20 mW Pamona, CA project and a 4000 mW “fix Newsome’s renewable gap project”, but still interesting:
copy
RENO, Nev., July 21, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ormat Technologies, Inc.1 (NYSE: ORA), today announced that its Ormat Nevada Inc. affiliate has closed on the transaction to acquire the 20 MW / 80 MWh Pomona energy storage facility in California from AltaGas Power Holdings (U.S.) Inc. (TSE: ALA) for a total consideration of $47 million, net of working capital adjustment and other adjustments totaling approximately $3.1 million.
They could always build some natural gas power plants to charge the batteries at night.
What has become evident as the amount of RE generation has grown in CA and in other developed countries, is that the green groups are now looking at demand management as the central focus of their RE plan. This means that even they have worked out that RE doesn’t work and the new plan is to get society conditioned to living with constant blackouts and subsistence type energy usage, under the guise of a moral cause to save the planet. Meanwhile, over the the developing world there is no issue with adding more coal plants every day and they are even encouraged to do so under the climate agreement, adding many times more CO2 than gets reduced by the smaller pool of developed countries. Green groups are fine with this overall global increase as can be observed by their lack of protest against countries such as China. In the new age of political climate science, it’s only the smaller emissions from the developed countries that are apparently bad for the planet. Huge levels of emissions from the developing world are just fine.
In my opinion, demand management was the plan from the start in the US.
There was some small discussion when power companies introduced “smart meters”were introduced but even that petered out.
However it is my impression Europe is far ahead in limiting demand, whether through regulations on appliances (underpowered vacuums) or the providers’ use of “smart”meters to limit usage.
“Collectively, energy regulators failed to anticipate this event and to take necessary actions to ensure reliable power to Californians”
Passing the buck again… They’re working with what they’ve been given, which is a system woefully inadequate to supply the demands of the state. This inadequacy grows larger and larger the more they shutter reliable power plants, replacing them with wind and solar.
And they DID anticipate events of this type, however they were not allowed to take any meaningful actions to prevent them. This is like running out of gas in your car and them blaming the engineers for not making it more fuel efficient.
Tygus, Here’s another note on storage costs. Big difference between 20 mW Pamona, CA project and a 4000 mW “fix Newsome’s renewable gap project”, but still interesting:
copy
RENO, Nev., July 21, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ormat Technologies, Inc.1 (NYSE: ORA), today announced that its Ormat Nevada Inc. affiliate has closed on the transaction to acquire the 20 MW / 80 MWh Pomona energy storage facility in California from AltaGas Power Holdings (U.S.) Inc. (TSE: ALA) for a total consideration of $47 million, net of working capital adjustment and other adjustments totaling approximately $3.1 million.
So it’s official, California is a third world country?
We will know for sure when the CA legislature forces HOA’s to permit back yard clotheslines to dry the laundry. (If anyone knows if they have already, let me know.)
No. California’s Public Employees Retirement Association (Calpers), for example, “…asks investment staff to disclose personal investments upon arriving and then annually for the previous year. Individuals take mandatory training on conflicts of interest…”
You see? “Mandatory” These people live by the Good Book.
During the effics training, Mr. Meng was probably still in China, where he was head of their three trillion dollar foreign investment program.
Liberal heads will explode by the millions when President Trump wins Cali in November !
It looks as though the “woke” American state of California is receiving a rude awakening with its embrace of renweable energy source over fossil fuels!
Whether it is energy or money, when people demand “free stuff” they find out eventually free stuff = no stuff.
“Gaps” is a pseudo excuse for not knowing what you’re doing. Nothing more, nothing less. Let’s all watch as California slowly slides into third world status.
Can someone please provide the time in the video where Newsome uttered the word “blackout”.
That is not a politically correct term and I doubt he would ever use that term. The accepted term in the USA is “Temporary Service Disruption”. In Australia, the process is termed “Load Management”.
Australians have been advised that no one should expect to have power always available. Weather dependent generation is inconsistent with power being always available when needed; that requires complete duplication of the system generation because the guaranteed output from weather dependent generators is zero. The solution is to implement load management. Australian businesses are paid big sums to reduce their demand.. US has a long way to go in getting up to date with weather dependent generation.
It appears the incident is being misreported. The term “blackout” is simply unacceptable.
When politically incongruent, yes. However, this time they are blackouts. That said, sometimes it’s a black hole, and other times it’s a black whore h/a NAACP.
it’s a black hole
≠=======
The correct term is holes of color.
California is not experiencing blackouts. They are having outs of color.
All of which is confusing because white is a mix of all colors, while black is the absence of color.
So technically a black hole is in fact a hole without color. And a blackout is an out without color.
Which seems correct because the eyes switch from color to black and white when the lights go out.
Just think how much bigger the problem would be if all cars and trucks in CA were electric.
Californians were urged not to charge their vehicles until late evening. It only takes a little electricity to pump thirty-one gallons into my Suburban’s tank.
Generac stock up?
I thought no new natgas supplies to homes