Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm confused by the other charts from the same source.

It shows California produced more energy from renewable than it did any other source. How do the graphs tally up? Actual question, not a counter to your post.


View attachment 154414

California produces 1085.5 trillion BTUs of renewable energy
California consumes 567.1 trillion BTUS of renewable energy
This means California sells 518.4‬ trillion BTUs of renewable energy to other states but their net energy transfer is importing 659.4 trillion BTUS. They sell a lot of renewable power but they're buying even more than they sell from states like Oregon and Arizona.

Remember, these charts are total energy (including transportation), not just electricity. Here's electricity:

Pretty sure mandating higher (energy) efficiency products or even subsidizing their sale will decrease a lot of peak load from the grids, you could also go one step further & punish willful or negligent waste of energy. There are many ways to skin the cat, the real question is how far are we willing to go?

USA has been prohibiting the sell of inefficient products for two decades. You can't even buy high flow faucets, shower heads, or toilets anymore. Incandescent bulbs are few and far between.

 

[R0H1T]

Batteries to save our overproduction and then what, rely on it for base load? Batteries also need replacing... production... it does not sound efficient and adds yet another piece into the chain... on a home use level, sure. But on the grid?!

This is why I said better battery tech is needed & obviously we aren't there yet. Would be cool if that IBM's proof of concept thing could work.

So what, South Australia did it.

USA has been prohibiting the sell of inefficient products for two decades. You can't even buy high flow faucets, shower heads, or toilets anymore. Incandescent bulbs are few and far between.

Can you tell me the number of 5 or 7 star rated, all the things I mentioned, selling in the US? I'm assuming you'd have the data, because mandating energy efficiency isn't the same as mandating only the most energy efficient products to sell also what about those gas guzzler pickup trucks or SUV sales?

Like I said, many ways to skin the cat, you do need more than just token gestures though for us to get there.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There are no "stars." There is Energy Star rating which is either qualifying or not based on efficiency requirements for the year of manufacturer. Vehicles are rated by the EPA and published on FuelEconomy.gov. There's also the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) which requires the average fuel efficiency of the companies offerings to be over a certain amount per year.

 

[R0H1T]

5 star rated is what we use here & I mentioned energy star on the last page, are you going to argue semantics or can you answer what I asked? What do I do with EPA ratings, are you telling me US is banning the sales of such gass guzzlers?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Here's an example of dehumidifier requirements to qualify for the Energy Star label:

Dehumidifiers Key Efficiency Criteria

www.energystar.gov

It's binary: it either qualifies or it doesn't. There are no tiers.


Didn't click that CAFE link?

In addition to reconsidering the application of the 2015 Act to the EPCA CAFE civil penalty provision, NHTSA has reconsidered its decisions in the July 2016 interim final rule and December 2016 final rule to increase the CAFE civil penalty rate and, as a result, is retaining the current civil penalty rate applicable to 49 U.S.C. 32912(b) of $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon for automobile manufacturers that do not meet applicable CAFE standards and are unable to offset such a deficit with compliance credits, rather than increasing the rate to $14 in model year 2019.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Batteries to save our overproduction and then what, rely on it for base load? Batteries also need replacing... production... it does not sound efficient and adds yet another piece into the chain... on a home use level, sure. But on the grid?!

Ironically, my opinion is the opposite. The grid is more useful because of the economies of scale. Home use doesn't make sense for batteries. If you can't solve the problem at utility scale, there's no hope you will make it efficient for the home-consumer. If you can't make a battery cost-efficient at 10 MW-hrs, why do you think you can make the battery cost-efficient at 10 kW-hrs ?

Same thing with solar power too. It will make more sense to build a single 10MW plant rather than a 10 kW plant on top of 1000 houses. I mean, if the home consumer is willing to buy a 10 kW plant and have it contribute to the grid (aka: Net-metering), then let those people give free money to the government / neighborhood. But otherwise... the grid is more efficient for society due to the economies of scale.

------------

Why the grid? Because different homes draw different amounts of power, and it is easier to load-balance when you have more customers. Consider a home, you may individually need 3kW to turn on your stove, 2kW for your air conditioner, and then 2kW for your electric clothes dryer. However, if you average out the load across 1000 homes, it is highly unlikely for all 1000-homes to turn on their stove, air conditioner, and clothes dryer simultaneously.

As such, 3MW-hrs of storage may be sufficient for a 1000-home neighborhood. But 3kW-hrs of storage per-home is clearly useless, unable to even run the stove+air conditioner for 1 hour. Utility companies can combine battery-usage with natural gas peaker plants for further efficiencies (if natural gas is cheaper, they can choose to use natural gas, or whatever is more efficient at the time).

From a sales perspective, it is more efficient to have a 10-person marketing team sell one 10MW-hr battery to one utility-scale provider rather than to go door-to-door and sell 10kW-hr batteries to 1000 different people. Everything is more efficient if you go big.

 

[Assimilator]

Pumped storage = acres flooded destroying habitats and prohibited the land from being used for agriculture.

Why does it have to be agricultural land?

Very few places even have landscape suitable to be converted into a reservoir.

The only concern I can see is fluid-induced seismicity... which is far less likely than, for example, the seismic events associated with fracking.

Additionally, it takes far more power to pump water up than you'll get back from capturing the kinetic energy as it falls

Once again, a known facet of such systems that has not prevented their adoption worldwide.

Nature destroys everything:

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Solar panels don’t last forever and degradation varies wildly, study says

A recent study from an international certification body revealed that some solar panels fair far better than others in laboratory tests that degraded their power conversion efficiency.

www.computerworld.com

The Life Span Of A Solar Inverter | Solar Market

The life span of a solar inverter is something you need to know, everyone talks about how long a solar panel lasts but the inverter needs to work too!

www.solarmarket.com.au

First one is an eight-year-old study funded by a group opposed to wind turbines.
Second is four years old.
Third is a source that is only concerned with home solar installations, i.e. the opposite of commercial-grade.

Here's some more up-to-date facts:

There are turbines operating in California that have been going for 40 years. And any piece of equipment, including coal or natural gas or nuclear, will require periodic overhauls to remain serviceable.
In 2016, the record for solar panel efficiency was around 25%. Three years later, the record is 47% with commercial-grade panels offering up to 37%.
Data on commercial-scale inverters is difficult to find, but DC optimisers can last as long as panels.

 

[Vayra86]

Ironically, my opinion is the opposite. The grid is more useful because of the economies of scale. Home use doesn't make sense for batteries. If you can't solve the problem at utility scale, there's no hope you will make it efficient for the home-consumer. If you can't make a battery cost-efficient at 10 MW-hrs, why do you think you can make the battery cost-efficient at 10 kW-hrs ?

Same thing with solar power too. It will make more sense to build a single 10MW plant rather than a 10 kW plant on top of 1000 houses. I mean, if the home consumer is willing to buy a 10 kW plant and have it contribute to the grid (aka: Net-metering), then let those people give free money to the government / neighborhood. But otherwise... the grid is more efficient for society due to the economies of scale.

------------

Why the grid? Because different homes draw different amounts of power, and it is easier to load-balance when you have more customers. Consider a home, you may individually need 3kW to turn on your stove, 2kW for your air conditioner, and then 2kW for your electric clothes dryer. However, if you average out the load across 1000 homes, it is highly unlikely for all 1000-homes to turn on their stove, air conditioner, and clothes dryer simultaneously.

As such, 3MW-hrs of storage may be sufficient for a 1000-home neighborhood. But 3kW-hrs of storage per-home is clearly useless, unable to even run the stove+air conditioner for 1 hour. Utility companies can combine battery-usage with natural gas peaker plants for further efficiencies (if natural gas is cheaper, they can choose to use natural gas, or whatever is more efficient at the time).

From a sales perspective, it is more efficient to have a 10-person marketing team sell one 10MW-hr battery to one utility-scale provider rather than to go door-to-door and sell 10kW-hr batteries to 1000 different people. Everything is more efficient if you go big.

I'll refer once again to the video linked a few pages back. The large scale energy production and the intermittency if you switch that to solar/wind is so immense, you'd need so many batteries it would destroy this planet completely in terms of raw materials required. Batteries also need replacement over time.

Economy of scale is the very thing that is one of the problems. Its an efficient way to handle things but we have started using it as an escape to make certain ideas viable that are, in core principle, really not all that logical. This battery issue is one of them. Are you really going to produce power when you don't need it, save it when you do need it, and then give it out? How is that efficient, just because you can generate it on solar or wind? What value do we really attribute to solar and wind? We already know that we need massive amounts of surface area to transfer our base load to renewable entirely. So massive in fact, that you could plant the whole world full of panels and still fall short.

So this is why I think on a private scale this is feasible, why, because you use a battery directly to increase the efficiency of solar panels on your roof. It is a form of micromanagement in the best possible way, because every house has its own family controlling this and that control has a financial stimulus. You get to make full use of the sun you caught during the day, all that is overproduced does not flow to the grid, but instead allows you to take a burden off the grid. The economy of scale here, is that a large number of batteries in homes will enable us to move to a lower base load. And thát is a true green energy source. Less. Not more. It reduces the intermittency problem, in fact, however small it may be at the beginning. If we make it mandatory, its a whole other story. But saving the industrial power usage per day in batteries?! You can easily predict what these industries need and when. Just build a high density, high power, efficient power source for it.

Did we really think it through on the true scale of the economy, or is everyone trying to make ends meet nationally and then creates a market that is hard to stop? I think its the latter, its just a new commercial money pit and the results so far seem to support that entirely. It happens with biomass, and its quickly happening to solar and wind as space becomes more expensive and scarce. And, it has already happened for EVs because Audi had production issues due to chronic lack of batteries for their designs, and this is just the early adopters phase... go figure.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Why does it have to be agricultural land?

Virtually all land has use.

The only concern I can see is fluid-induced seismicity... which is far less likely than, for example, the seismic events associated with fracking.

Pumped storage for grid power is in the form of lakes/dams.

Once again, a known facet of such systems that has not prevented their adoption worldwide.

When you have natural gas that produces what you need, when you need it, there's no reason for pumped storage (and the high costs associated with it) at all.

There are turbines operating in California that have been going for 40 years.

Small turbines subjected to low wind speeds. They don't produce much power.

Right now, windspeeds here are SW 25 G 36 mph. The turbine being built are in the many MW range. They're not going to last 40 years. The tips of those things break the sound barrier. <1 MW are unsuitable for grid generation. Every time I drive by these huge wind turbines, probably 25% of them aren't even spinning. They're either broke, it's too windy, or it's not windy enough.

And any piece of equipment, including coal or natural gas or nuclear, will require periodic overhauls to remain serviceable.

Of course but they're producing power 24/7/365 when not being serviced. You get a whole lot more power for your maintenance costs.

In 2016, the record for solar panel efficiency was around 25%. Three years later, the record is 47% with commercial-grade panels offering up to 37%.

And? It's still a function of surface area. Not to mention environmentally damaging not only because of the resource intensity to make and deliver them, but also because they lower albedo which means temperature goes up. They are antithetical to the goal of reducing surface temperatures.

Data on commercial-scale inverters is difficult to find, but DC optimisers can last as long as panels.

Because they're usually handled by power companies and they buy everything from their suppliers.

 

[Vayra86]

This is why I said better battery tech is needed & obviously we aren't there yet. Would be cool if that IBM's proof of concept thing could work.

Better battery tech is needed... yeah. An infinite power source would also be nice. Or an endless money tree in the backyard.

Why are we betting on stuff we don't have and repeatedly discover from that improvements are going to be minimal at best, over long periods of time? I mean... there is new battery tech flying around tech sites almost monthly, but none of it made a real dent to something we can actually produce effectively. Musk made some strides in his battery tech that resulted in a reduction of material cost, and less cobalt... that's about all she wrote ever since Li-Ion was a thing.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Are you really going to produce power when you don't need it, save it when you do need it, and then give it out? How is that efficient, just because you can generate it on solar or wind?

In the case of Solar and Wind, yes. Because the energy is literally free. In the case of nuclear, yes. Because the amount of uranium fuel used up is miniscule compared to the cost of the power plant. It makes 100% sense to run a nuclear power plant at full load 100% of the time, its not the fuel costs that get you, its the fact that you built a nuclear power plant to begin with (since its so expensive and has so many safety regulations).

Even in the case of coal power, it is cheaper to keep coal plants running for hours as a baseline generator rather than ramp up and down.

Natural gas is one of the few sources of power which can be "turned on" and "turned off" at will. Its extremely flexible. But all other sources of energy operate on their own schedule. Its cheaper to store the energy and keep the plants running. The "renewable" that can be turned on / turned off at will is hydro, but that is only valid in certain locations (and the west-coast has a bunch of water concerns, meaning pumped hydro is mostly an action to save water, not generate power).

Energy storage helps all forms of energy except for natural gas, be it nuclear, coal, solar, or wind. Even saving energy from Hydro is great, if you're primarily managing water instead of energy. (If California needs a million gallons of water, Hoover Dam will release the water whether or not the area needs energy. Energy will be generated, but where will you store it?).

What value do we really attribute to solar and wind? We already know that we need massive amounts of surface area to transfer our base load to renewable entirely. So massive in fact, that you could plant the whole world full of panels and still fall short.

I'm a "every form of energy" approach person. Use solar where the sun shines. Use wind where the wind blows. Use nuclear where the local population accepts it. Use natural gas for peakers. Use energy storage to make all other forms of energy more efficient.

So this is why I think on a private scale this is feasible, why, because you use a battery directly to increase the efficiency of solar panels on your roof. It is a form of micromanagement in the best possible way, because every house has its own family controlling this and that control has a financial stimulus.

Home solar makes no sense, because most people aren't home when the noon sun (most energy) is available. You're at work. So why would you store the energy from noon, when you could instead move the energy on electrical wires to someone who actually can use the energy?

Industry (manufacturing plants) use the most electricity during the day, when the workers are at the plant. Commercial sectors use the most electricity (air conditioning) when the stores are open and people are visiting. Home have no use of energy when they're sitting mostly empty at the bright, high-energy 12:00 noon sun.

This is why net-metering is IMO, a good idea. You feed the grid with energy and get credits for it, because the USA actually uses more energy during 12:00 noon than other time periods. However, homes sit empty at that time, so it really makes more sense to send the energy to other sectors in your city rather than capture it in an inefficient battery for storage at a later time (ie: 5:00pm when you get home).

EDIT: Case in point: it is more efficient to move the energy from solar to the local mall's air conditioner unit at 12:00 noon. At 4:00pm (1 hour before you arrive home), your air conditioner should turn on and bring your house back to a comfortable temperature. However, if you have a home solar panel, you're more inclined to run your air conditioner throughout the day (even at 12:00 noon with an empty house). In fact, the optimal strategy is to run your AC as low as it can go (maybe to 65F or lower) during noon. By the time 5 or 6pm comes by and you're home, the temperature rises to a comfortable 70F or higher, and will stay there throughout the night. (Yes, this means you use the air in your home as a battery pack, "storing" cold air for later. Its a free form of energy storage that's locally optimal, but globally suboptimal)

 

[Vayra86]

In the case of Solar and Wind, yes. Because the energy is literally free. In the case of nuclear, yes. Because the amount of uranium fuel used up is miniscule compared to the cost of the power plant. It makes 100% sense to run a nuclear power plant at full load 100% of the time, its not the fuel costs that get you, its the fact that you built a nuclear power plant to begin with (since its so expensive and has so many safety regulations).

Even in the case of coal power, it is cheaper to keep coal plants running for hours as a baseline generator rather than ramp up and down.

Natural gas is one of the few sources of power which can be "turned on" and "turned off" at will. Its extremely flexible. But all other sources of energy operate on their own schedule. Its cheaper to store the energy and keep the plants running. The "renewable" that can be turned on / turned off at will is hydro, but that is only valid in certain locations (and the west-coast has a bunch of water concerns, meaning pumped hydro is mostly an action to save water, not generate power).

Energy storage helps all forms of energy except for natural gas, be it nuclear, coal, solar, or wind. Even saving energy from Hydro is great, if you're primarily managing water instead of energy. (If California needs a million gallons of water, Hoover Dam will release the water whether or not the area needs energy. Energy will be generated, but where will you store it?).



I'm a "every form of energy" approach person. Use solar where the sun shines. Use wind where the wind blows. Use nuclear where the local population accepts it. Use natural gas for peakers. Use energy storage to make all other forms of energy more efficient.



Home solar makes no sense, because most people aren't home when the noon sun (most energy) is available. You're at work. So why would you store the energy from noon, when you could instead move the energy on electrical wires to someone who actually can use the energy?

Industry (manufacturing plants) use the most electricity during the day, when the workers are at the plant. Commercial sectors use the most electricity (air conditioning) when the stores are open and people are visiting. Home have no use of energy when they're sitting mostly empty at the bright, high-energy 12:00 noon sun.

This is why net-metering is IMO, a good idea. You feed the grid with energy and get credits for it, because the USA actually uses more energy during 12:00 noon than other time periods. However, homes sit empty at that time, so it really makes more sense to send the energy to other sectors in your city rather than capture it in an inefficient battery for storage at a later time (ie: 5:00pm when you get home).

Can't disagree on most of these things either - as in, use the energy where and when it is most efficient, and yes, batteries are part of the solution absolutely. But that is not the way renewable is pushed today, that is my gripe with it. The way Germany moved to solar for example... questionable. It hasn't earned them a whole lot, in the grand scheme of things. Luckily the approach in Europe is indeed more diverse, but still, I don't get the impression the right metrics are used to measure our efficiency, because here we lack a unified approach. The market for energy is like a stock market and there is constant overproduction. As with many other issues we have... the market controls this in many ways, and the market is not entirely beneficial; in the case of gas and oil, it is also politically volatile. We're getting a lot of gas from Russia, for example, and they've already used it as a lever to push an agenda multiple times.

As for the net-metering... I've got 10 panels on my roof (about 3100 Wp) and feed back to the grid, and get paid for it already It has taken a chunk of about 1/3rd out of my energy bill - most of my power usage but not the gas which is used for heating and cooking. Its a good system, yes. Government is already slowly reducing the financial gains from it now, as of recently... this might devolve into the same shit quickly and become economically unattractive, or so mildly you wouldn't bother. Joys of the market...

 

[dragontamer5788]

The market for energy is like a stock market and there is constant overproduction.

Noon energy in California is known to go into negative pricing recently. I use California numbers because they're well organized and public. I live on the other side of the country, but it serves as a good case study for what high-deployments of renewables will do to your local energy grid. http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do

You're right in that the energy market is basically like the stock market... or really closer to the "futures" market. You can buy and sell energy production and consumption on the public markets. When energy prices go negative, companies specializing in energy storage will "buy up negative-cost" energy. When energy prices go positive, the energy-storage will then sell the energy back out.

With "energy arbitrage", the state gives the job of managing energy storage to private companies. These private companies will store energy when they think they can make more money later. Its win/win/win for everyone involved.

----------

IMO, the future should be to give energy arbitrage opportunities to the individual homeowners, providing unique energy arbitrage opportunities. Yeah, if the homeowner thinks they can make money with energy arbitrage, they should be given the opportunity (but I doubt that anyone would actually make money given the high costs of Li-ion batteries). Energy arbitrage for the average homeowner would be more about setting timers. Charge your electric car at 3:00am, when energy prices are cheapest. Turn on your washing machine / dryer at 3:00am (if you can wait for your load to be done tomorrow). Etc. etc. Let the individual homeowner see the difference in energy prices and let them change their personal habits to optimize their prices.

 

[Vayra86]

Noon energy in California is known to go into negative pricing recently. I use California numbers because they're well organized and public. I live on the other side of the country, but it serves as a good case study for what high-deployments of renewables will do to your local energy grid. http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do

You're right in that the energy market is basically like the stock market... or really closer to the "futures" market. You can buy and sell energy production and consumption on the public markets. When energy prices go negative, companies specializing in energy storage will "buy up negative-cost" energy. When energy prices go positive, the energy-storage will then sell the energy back out.

With "energy arbitrage", the state gives the job of managing energy storage to private companies. These private companies will store energy when they think they can make more money later. Its win/win/win for everyone involved.

----------

IMO, the future should be to give energy arbitrage opportunities to the individual homeowners, providing unique energy arbitrage opportunities. Yeah, if the homeowner thinks they can make money with energy arbitrage, they should be given the opportunity (but I doubt that anyone would actually make money given the high costs of Li-ion batteries). Energy arbitrage for the average homeowner would be more about setting timers. Charge your electric car at 3:00am, when energy prices are cheapest. Turn on your washing machine / dryer at 3:00am (if you can wait for your load to be done tomorrow). Etc. etc. Let the individual homeowner see the difference in energy prices and let them change their personal habits to optimize their prices.

In my country, there is a ruling that stated I am officially an energy production company now. I really am, and am also registered officially as one, the government didn't much like it

We really need to adjust the general way we think about this, that is for sure.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Noon energy in California is known to go into negative pricing recently. I use California numbers because they're well organized and public. I live on the other side of the country, but it serves as a good case study for what high-deployments of renewables will do to your local energy grid. http://oasis.caiso.com/mrioasis/logon.do

You're right in that the energy market is basically like the stock market... or really closer to the "futures" market. You can buy and sell energy production and consumption on the public markets. When energy prices go negative, companies specializing in energy storage will "buy up negative-cost" energy. When energy prices go positive, the energy-storage will then sell the energy back out.

With "energy arbitrage", the state gives the job of managing energy storage to private companies. These private companies will store energy when they think they can make more money later. Its win/win/win for everyone involved.

...and someone dumping electricity like Saudi Arabia loves to do with oil means transformers blowing all over the grid. No spank you!

An electric capacitor discharging into the grid is a lot like an oil tanker spilling.

IMO, the future should be to give energy arbitrage opportunities to the individual homeowners, providing unique energy arbitrage opportunities. Yeah, if the homeowner thinks they can make money with energy arbitrage, they should be given the opportunity (but I doubt that anyone would actually make money given the high costs of Li-ion batteries). Energy arbitrage for the average homeowner would be more about setting timers. Charge your electric car at 3:00am, when energy prices are cheapest. Turn on your washing machine / dryer at 3:00am (if you can wait for your load to be done tomorrow). Etc. etc. Let the individual homeowner see the difference in energy prices and let them change their personal habits to optimize their prices.

Some power companies already do this even when they don't have a lot of renewables (and no batteries) on their grid. Reducing the peak, in general, means they have to spool up fewer generators which saves them (and customers) money.


EVs... *snigger*

...they're not going become mainstream for decades, if ever. Even in California which has incentivized installation of charging stations, range anxiety is real for so many reasons (e.g. other EVs sitting at charge stations you absolutely need because you're dangerously low on charge). It's already a chronic problem and it only gets worse with more EVs on the road.

 

[dragontamer5788]

...and someone dumping electricity like Saudi Arabia loves to do with oil means transformers blowing all over the grid. No spank you!

Not really.

1. If someone dumps energy into the US grid, they'd be physically located in the USA. Unlike Saudi Arabia / Russia, this would make them subject to local US law enforcement.

2. The grid in the USA is highly regulated. If you fail to use electricity at a utility scale as you promised, you're subject to fines and penalties.

3. There exist services that monitor the grid and can "waste" electricity when too much electricity appears on the grid. Its actually a relatively simple problem: when the 60 Hz signal inches upwards (say to 60.1 Hz), then too much energy is on the grid and energy needs to be taken out of the grid. When the 60 Hz signal inches lower (say to 59.9 Hz), you shove more energy into the grid.

4. Because of #3, net metering is possible. Solar Panels with net metering are hooked up in a way such that they are always dumping energy onto the grid. Its just how things are done. There's so much energy demand that throwing 10kW here and there onto the grid won't change anything, there's enough stability systems in place that it works out. At the 10 MW level, you need more coordination, but that's a solved regulation / legal issue that all utility companies already face.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1. If someone dumps energy into the US grid, they'd be physically located in the USA. Unlike Saudi Arabia / Russia, this would make them subject to local US law enforcement.

Didn't stop Enron, did it?

2. The grid in the USA is highly regulated. If you fail to use electricity at a utility scale as you promised, you're subject to fines and penalties.

No, it isn't. It's almost entirely privately owned and they're careful what they do because the cost of fixing things when they go wrong is astronomical. This is why, for example, PG&E sued Apple for several hundred million dollars because Apple's solar panels forced PG&E to install more natural gas turbines that they can turn off relative to power collected.

3. There exist services that monitor the grid and can "waste" electricity when too much electricity appears on the grid. Its actually a relatively simple problem: when the 60 Hz signal inches upwards (say to 60.1 Hz), then too much energy is on the grid and energy needs to be taken out of the grid. When the 60 Hz signal inches lower (say to 59.9 Hz), you shove more energy into the grid.

It's amps, not Hz, and releasing energy is explosive. That's what you're talking about is moot. The solution right now and for the foreseeable future is natural gas turbines. Their RPMs fluctuate based on grid need.

4. Because of #3, net metering is possible. Solar Panels with net metering are hooked up in a way such that they are always dumping energy onto the grid. Its just how things are done. There's so much energy demand that throwing 10kW here and there onto the grid won't change anything, there's enough stability systems in place that it works out. At the 10 MW level, you need more coordination, but that's a solved regulation / legal issue that all utility companies already face.

#2 and #3 is how the grid deals with "green" BS polluting the grid.

How many times do I have to repeat myself: renewable (sans hydro) is aka natural gas. That's not going to change because of the intermittency of wind/solar and the cheapness of natural gas:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Solar photovoltaic (30% capacity factor): $32.80/MWh
Wind, onshore (40% capacity factor): $34.10/MWh
Combined Cycle Gas (87% capacity factor): $36.61/MWh
...there's a lot of data missing because these are projections for 2023-2035. There aren't plans to add more nuclear, coal, nor biomass to the grid.

Here's from Lazard with a more finite breakdown:

https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf

Home PV installations are the worst.

 

[the54thvoid]

Ford has a point about natural gas. It's there to see. I know this is just one source but still.

The missing puzzle piece for getting to 100% clean power

It’s about using renewable energy to make gas.

www.google.co.uk

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That graph on that page was the one I was trying to find before but couldn't.

That's the reason why natural gas is replacing everything else. Nothing else (except hydro) can surge like that on a daily basis.


Re: hydrogen instead of natural gas...only makes sense when that hydrogen can be fused. Renewables to perform electrolysis back to hydrogen which is simply burned...the amount of loss in that system is so substantial, it's self defeating.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Didn't stop Enron, did it?

Enron didn't blow up transformers. They committed fraud and then went bankrupt. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

It's amps, not Hz, and releasing energy is explosive. That's what you're talking about is moot. The solution right now and for the foreseeable future is natural gas turbines. Their RPMs fluctuate based on grid need.

Its alternating current. The amount of current going through your mains is 0-amps over any period longer than 1/60th of a second. Utility operators measure frequency to see how stable the grid is. If there's too much demand for electricity, the frequency dips (down to say, 59.9 Hz). If there's too little demand for electricity, the frequency increases (up to say, 60.1 Hz). Amps simply don't make sense as a measurement in regards to an AC mains system.

With regard to grid stability, yes, natural gas peaker plants are used. But there is also pumped hydro, batteries (lead acid and Li-ion), and even Flywheels.

Here's a link if you don't believe me: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/ebf483/node/705

#2 and #3 is how the grid deals with "green" BS polluting the grid.

Erm... no. Load dumps happen every time air conditioners decide to run at the same time (ex: the sun comes out, heats up an area by a few degrees, and causes everyone's AC to turn on simultaneously). Or... the reverse. A cloud covers up the sun, and suddenly everyone's AC turns off in an area simultaneously. Even without any green energy, frequency regulation is needed just because large-scale synchronized load dumps happen on a regular basis.

But because we already have a large degree of frequency regulation occurring on our grid, it turns out that the US grid is well-equipped to use it to also help out with green energy's warts.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Enron didn't blow up transformers. They committed fraud and then went bankrupt. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

There was a company that went bankrupt due to oil speculation. It apparently wasn't Enron and I can't find it despite searching.

Erm... no. Load dumps happen every time air conditioners decide to run at the same time (ex: the sun comes out, heats up an area by a few degrees, and causes everyone's AC to turn on simultaneously). Or... the reverse. A cloud covers up the sun, and suddenly everyone's AC turns off in an area simultaneously. Even without any green energy, frequency regulation is needed just because large-scale synchronized load dumps happen on a regular basis.

But because we already have a large degree of frequency regulation occurring on our grid, it turns out that the US grid is well-equipped to use it to also help out with green energy's warts.

And which generation units are throttling to react to changes in the grid? Not nuclear and coal because they have to bleed heat/steam or pressure vessels/piping explodes. Not wind/solar because they have limited ability to control anything. Hydroelectric dams are a rare thing in much of the USA. It's natural gas combined cycle turbines.

 

[dragontamer5788]

And which generation units are throttling to react to changes in the grid?

Almost all forms of energy can throttle. This is called a "load following power plant". Yes, even solar have load-following designs. Wind is the only power plant that isn't typically used as a load-following plant.

Load-following power plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Older coal /nuclear plants are baseload generators, without any ability to load-follow. But modern coal / nuclear plants can load follow just fine. Modern plants probably should be built with more load-following capabilities, to allow for renewables to do their thing.

-----------

Another note: economics. Solar has literally free "fuel" costs. Nuclear is nearly free (only needs refueling every 1 to 2 years). Because of the abnormally low fuel costs associated with these plants, it doesn't make economic sense to throttle them. All more expensive fuels should be throttled first, before you start throttling nuclear (and finally solar). Natural Gas is throttled first because it has the most expensive fuel.

-------

It should be noted that a large number of loads can become responsive without much cost to the grid. Most stadiums have chiller-towers, where cold water is stored for days ahead of major events, so that the crowds can have access to cold-air during the game. These chiller towers can be a "responsive load", and stabilize the grid. When the grid has too much energy, the chiller towers turn on, and when the grid doesn't have enough energy, the chiller towers turn off. IIRC, Germany is beginning to use responsive-load in Aluminum manufacturing plants. An automated aluminum plant can turn off and respond to the needs of the grid (again: using energy when the grid is "too hot", and ramping down when the grid doesn't have juice).

And electric vehicle chargers will also have responsive loads. As long as the vehicle is charged in X hours (say, before 7am tomorrow), the charger has done its job. So an electric car charger should have a responsive-load, stabilizing the grid throughout the charging duration.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Older coal /nuclear plants are baseload generators, without any ability to load-follow. But modern coal / nuclear plants can load follow just fine. Modern plants probably should be built with more load-following capabilities, to allow for renewables to do their thing.

Nuclear can't:

These reactors have the capability to regularly vary their output between 30–100% of rated power, to maneuver power up or down by 2–5%/minute during load following activities, and to participate in primary and secondary frequency control at ±2–3% (primary frequency control) and ±3–5% (secondary frequency control, ≥5% for N4 reactors in Mode X).

That's new French reactors too. They can respond to regular day/night cycles but they can't do anything about drastic changes induced by renewables.

Coal power plants in general are being replaced by natural gas.

Natural Gas is throttled first because it has the most expensive fuel.

They're throttled first because it's literally a turbine connected to a generator. They can run at 10000 RPM, they can run at 60,000 RPM, or anywhere in between. How much power they produce is directly proportional to how much natural gas they consume. It only takes a few minutes (at most) to reach any point in that range.

It should be noted that a large number of loads can become responsive without much cost to the grid. Most stadiums have chiller-towers, where cold water is stored for days ahead of major events, so that the crowds can have access to cold-air during the game. These chiller towers can be a "responsive load", and stabilize the grid. When the grid has too much energy, the chiller towers turn on, and when the grid doesn't have enough energy, the chiller towers turn off. IIRC, Germany is beginning to use responsive-load in Aluminum manufacturing plants. An automated aluminum plant can turn off and respond to the needs of the grid (again: using energy when the grid is "too hot", and ramping down when the grid doesn't have juice).

And electric vehicle chargers will also have responsive loads. As long as the vehicle is charged in X hours (say, before 7am tomorrow), the charger has done its job. So an electric car charger should have a responsive-load, stabilizing the grid throughout the charging duration.

This is how you get situations like the Northeast blackout. Unless the grid can literally turn all of that equipment on and off individually, it can cause spikes or gluts which, in turn, cause generators to respond in a bad way triggering a cascade. The grid is not that smart.

 

[dragontamer5788]

This is how you get situations like the Northeast blackout.

Am I reading what you want me to read?

The blackout's proximate cause was a software bug in the alarm system at the control room of FirstEnergy, an Akron, Ohio–based company, which rendered operators unaware of the need to redistribute load after overloaded transmission lines drooped into foliage.

That's new French reactors too. They can respond to regular day/night cycles but they can't do anything about drastic changes induced by renewables.

Today's Outlook | Demand | California ISO

Monitor real-time grid conditions. View current and historical data for demand, net-demand, supply, renewables, CO2 emissions and wholesale energy prices.

www.caiso.com

This is the duck curve from California, caused by the excessive amounts of solar power deployed in the state of California. Notice the Noon-day sun that causes solar panels to activate, dropping the the energy usage of Californians by 10GWs. Then at 7pm, the sun sets, requiring the grid to grow by 10GWs in 3 hours. We now have the numbers for what large scale solar deployments cause.

The worst rampup of that grid is the 10GW ramp in 3 hours at the end of the day, going from 60% generation to 100% generation across 3 hours. The 2-5% / minute load following capability of nuclear power plants per minute can more than follow the steep duck curve in the highest solar deployment in America.

This is real data that occurred on May 8th, 2020. We have reality before us, we have the stats to see how things work in the real world. There's no need to guess or make hypotheticals. Just look at the data. Nuclear isn't as agile as natural gas, but guess what? Its agile enough to handle the reality of our demand curves and energy usage patterns.

 

[the54thvoid]

Your discussion/disagreement might be better taken to PM? I'd rather not see the thread going back and forth between you as it has been. It's becoming somewhat of a stalemate....

And, please understand, I mean no disrespect.