Split to California energy politics (from kWH Grid Solar)

System · November 2018

This discussion was created from comments split from: Kw/hrs grid & Solar.

Ampster · November 2018

BB. said:

...........
...... our state government doing things for the "children" (our last deregulation in 2000 just about bankrupted our two major utilities and had us on rotating outages for a few days before they "saw the light"). Looks like we are about to do something similar with "going 100% green utility power" (like in Australia where one or two states went so "green" that they cannot keep companies with stable power--From what I have read).

I know that the California deregulation in 2000 was flawed, but it took an Enron to find those flaws. It was Enron's exorbitant fees that almost bankrupted the IOUs if I remember correctly. I do think the monopoly model of energy production is way overdue for major modification. At least we can now pick our generation provider in some cases where there is Community Choice Aggregation. What is left is determining what is the fair cost of the fixed assets necessary to keep the grid stable.

If I understand your other point about going 100% green I think I agree with your comment about stability. Apparently Tesla found a way in Australia to make some money off grid stabilization. California does have a generous Self Generation Incentive Program that is subsidizing the installation of a lot of grid tie battery systems. There was also a big subsidy for Utility scale batteries as a result of a predicted shortage of natural gas to power peaker plants. The rate of battery deployment and other storage strategies need to keep pace with the growth of solar generation in the state.

Another issue I see is that the pricing doesn't reflect the actual costs of generation. That occurs even with the new requirement that California ratepayers move to Time of Use rates by 2019 except during the late afternoon ramp up (often called the neck of the duck curve). This is related to stability but is also unique. What I am talking about is the over generation in the mornings as solar ramps up faster than demand. I think there should be a pricing model that signals users to put load on the grid. This could be storage in the form of grid supporting batteries, EV charging or any of the other ways to store energy.

BB. · November 2018

I should put the 2000 California "Deregulation" in quotes...

Who could not see that having highly regulated prices that utilities could charge their customers forced to sell off their generation capacity and buy the energy on a (very poorly) regulated open market with long term power contracts limited to something like 24 hours in advance (yea, who would build power plants and buy long term fuel/energy contracts when your "customers" could only write 24 hour contacts bylaw or even sell power to utilities that were obviously going broke). Sent our three major utilities into near and actual bankruptcy in 2001.

If you want to see what is happening with utilty power in California, CaISO "manages" something like 80% of the electrical energy in the state (setup to prevent the 2000 fiasco in the first place--That worked out well...):

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

Some history:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/california/timeline.html
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/30xx/doc3062/californiaenergy.pdf

California's new law that is forcing the use of "green electricity" is going to be another car crash...

-Bill

Ampster · November 2018

@BB.
I am familiar with CAISO. They were created in 1992 by the Federal Energy Policy Act. Deregulation in California came later, in 1996 and the crisis happened in 2000. Perhaps you are saying that there was too much optimism about their ability to avoid manipulation.
I am also a in favor of a new model of energy distribution that is not entirely based on return of investment. I do think that if one of the important factors determining revenue is the size of a IOUs asset base then they are going to be suboptimal in deploying those assets. I am all for their investment in smart grid technology and more storage to support the growth of solar. They are the provider of last resort to millions on the grid.

I would like to understand more about what you see about California's new law being a "car crash"? Do you think there will not be enough storage? Do you think Distributed Energy Resources can help to avoid that crash? What about more realistic pricing to reflect excess solar supply in the mornings and to shift demand to that time period?

BB. · November 2018

Ampster--Placing an agency in the middle between the utility and the generator that has zero responsibility (every one in CAISO and CaPUC and any state legislator+governor that signed these monstrosities should have been fired right down to the janitors and been taken to bankruptcy when they cost the taxpayers $40,000,000,000 in 40 year bonds to "pay" for the "market failure/experiment" in 2000--Yes, I am being a little bit over the top--The janitors should not be taken bankrupt).

Now we have a law that 100% of the state's electric power must be "renewable" by 2045... The only cost effective energy storage is the use of dams (pumped hydro)--But we are in the midst of the "take down the dams" movement on the west coast (wild rivers).

They are spending untold amounts of money on solar thermal power plants that simply do not work, kill birds, and burn lots of natural gas to "get going".

Looking at Germany, their green crusade has not reduced their production of CO2 (not a pollutant, a fertilizer--Another story). Fuel (and Nuclear) power plants are "dispatchable' power (you can schedule and modify power generation based on needs/demand). Solar/Wind is not (it is only available when sun/wind is present). Germany keeps demonstrating this:

https://www.wired.com/story/a-law-alone-wont-get-california-to-100-percent-green-power/

Not coincidentally, the country with the world’s fourth largest economy—Germany—has also tried to go full-clean energy. It's effort, the "Energiewende" has been a qualified success. Energy bills have gone up for consumers, but the price of photovoltaic cells has plummeted since Germany entered the market. And, weirdly, since Germany has also decided to decommission its nuclear power plants, the country has had to buy dirty electrons made from hydrocarbons, paradoxically increasing overall greenhouse gas emissions. “The environmental community has touted Germany as a great success story, and the Wall Street Journal regularly beats it up as a failure,” Reicher says. “Our answer is somewhere in the middle, tending toward positive.”

I have not read the law... But it probably scores at 100% green power if the kWH of Solar/Wind/bio/small hydro is > the load for the state... But "holes" in the production (bad weaher, variable wind, droughts) will be made up by fuel and Nuclear. And that stuff on "spinning standby" still costs lots of money.

What is "realistic" pricing... At this point, utilities and even countries are paying customers to take the "excess power" from solar/wind ("negative" energy costs--WhooHoo!). However, the only reason that makes any "economic" sense is that the Solar And Wind people are getting huge subsidies to generate power that nobody wants and the utilities have to "dump" it somewhere.

If what Al Gore said was true:

https://twitter.com/algore/status/1061011460321611776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1061011460321611776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2018%2F11%2F10%2Fal-gore-claims-wind-and-solar-are-now-cheaper-than-coal%2F

Then get rid of the subsides... But we know that as soon as the subsidies are removed--The whole renewable energy industry will collapse.

If storage was "fixed" (batteries)--I am not sure that wind and other alternative fuels will ever be cost competitive with hydrocarbons, nuclear, or large hydro. (right now, storage seems to cost more than the average cost of power from a utilty power plant--which requires zero storage).

-Bill

Estragon · November 2018

Utility power plant "storage" is in the bits of coal or whatever is used to power it. Seems to me the way to get to 100% "renewable" is to find a way to use solar etc to make the whatever (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.)

Estragon · November 2018

What I'm suggesting is storing solar as synthetic coal (or whatever - grow algea in ponds, burn the methane, etc).

Photowhit · November 2018

Since we have skated way off the original subject. I totally agree with Bill. Storage is not even realistically possible for a 100% renewable California. Consider that battery backup, be cause at some point the wind won't blow and the sun won't shine enough to produce the energy needed. So a large battery will be required.

Remember Tesla building a huge battery for South Australia? It's really just a momentary storage to allow alternative means of energy production to start up! Consider it stores 129 MW enough to supply South Australia for about 1 minute after line losses.

mcnutt13579 · November 2018

Sort of reminds me of the high speed rail. Relying on a technology that has barely been invented and cannot be acquired for the money allocated. In the rail department the problem is acquiring the right-of-way, same problem, not enough real estate, nor money in the state, to meet the requirements of the ballot initiative that the voters approved.

bill von novak · November 2018

BB. said:
Then get rid of the subsides... But we know that as soon as the subsidies are removed--The whole renewable energy industry will collapse.

Currently subsidies are certainly needed to have solar make sense for cases like Massachusetts residential installations. But utility scale installations are already being built without subsidies.

That being said, I'd be fine with getting rid of ALL subsidies. End solar subsidies, end Price-Waterhouse, end cheap mineral rights sales for coal companies etc etc. Put one BACT emissions standard in place and stick with it. Much simpler and cheaper.

Ampster · November 2018

BB. said:

.......................
If storage was "fixed" (batteries)--I am not sure that wind and other alternative fuels will ever be cost competitive with hydrocarbons, nuclear, or large hydro..................

I didn't mean to hijack this thread by asking a few questions. Perhaps you are better off moving these comments to a new thread so the OP doesn't have to wade through this conversation to get answers to his original question. I am also disappointed with the history in California also but perhaps more optimistic about the future. I agree we can't rely on one form of energy storage for a solution. I am hedging my bets by trying to be as independent of the grid as I can afford.

BB. · November 2018

We can continue the Energy Politics discussion here--For anyone that wishes to continue.

-Bill

mike95490 · November 2018

bill von novak said:

....... Much simpler and cheaper.

But what will the buildings full of lawyers do ?

BB. · November 2018

Where was my LCD Flat Screen/Digital TV/Roku subsidy?

Amazing how fast something is adopted if it is desirable--And without government subsidies (there are $20-$40 Digital to Analog TV converters that was subsidize--I think--I have only seen two of those converters in the wild).

https://www.lifewire.com/digital-to-analog-converter-box-3276358

$40 coupon, 2x per household. 34 million coupons used by 2009.

-Bill

Ampster · November 2018

Photowhit said:

.............
Remember Tesla building a huge battery for South Australia? It's really just a momentary storage to allow alternative means of energy production to start up! Consider it stores 129 MW enough to supply South Australia for about 1 minute after line losses.

The South Australian battery was not designed as storage for backup. It was designed as a frequency response device and has served that purpose well.

Ampster · November 2018

As far as the goal for 2045, remember it is just a goal. I am More interested in the progress that is made between now and then. Clearly some mistakes have been made and we probably agree on most of those. What I am really interested in is what are the solutions and what have we learned from the past mistakes?
I think with the low price of natural gas that it will be the alternative. Coal and nuclear are not cost effective compared with natural gas. Damming rivers may not be politically feasible but there are some storage facilities along the California Aguaduct. For example, San Luis resevoir generates some energy which is mostly used to offset the cost of pumping. More can be built. Peaker plants are not competitive with battery storage. So that higher source of pollution may be eliminated.

BB. · November 2018

Peaker plants are quite competitive... They generally use natural gas and are among the most fuel efficient of hydrocarbon power plants. And they are the cheapest to build of any power plant.

With battery storage systems--They are cost about the same to build as a non-natural gas power plant (excluding hydro which is quite expensive to build), but you still need to build power plants too (batteries, obviously, only store previously generated power, they do not create power).

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/

Actual cost of electricity... Fuel costs are an issue (variable depending on cost of fuel, only pay for fuel costs when plant is generating power--Solar, Wind, Hydro do not have fuel costs). And how long they run during the year... Peaker plants may only run weeks out of a year, wind is 15-30% of name plate rating, solar is ~30% of rating, base load fuel and nuclear plants run 99%+ of the time.

-Bill

bill von novak · November 2018

BB. said:

Peaker plants are quite competitive... They generally use natural gas and are among the most fuel efficient of hydrocarbon power plants. And they are the cheapest to build of any power plant.

Did you mean "combined cycle plants?" Those are the really efficient ones.

There are two general types of natural gas plants out there - peakers and combined cycle plants. Peakers are generally just combustion turbines. (We have two here.) They burn natural gas, run it through a turbine to drive a generator, then exhaust it. (In our case we use the waste heat to drive an evap-cycle chiller for air conditioning, but that's not used for power.) They are cheap, easy to build and reliable. They also start up very quickly (within minutes.) They are not very efficient; 35% would be a typical number.

The second is the combined cycle plant. These use a combustion turbine, then the exhaust goes into a heat recovery boiler. This boils water for a second turbine which generates more power. These are slower to start up, more expensive, more complex and harder to control - but they are _very_ efficient. I've seen claims of >60% efficiency, which is remarkable. Startup times are measured in hours.

(Worth noting is that there are now fast startup combined cycle plants which can be up and running on the combustion turbine within about 15 minutes, with the heat-recovery turbine coming in later.)

A lot of the work being done on battery systems now is to reduce the ramp rate when there is a sudden demand for power. With a slow ramp rate you can use fast startup combined cycle plants only, with the batteries used to get you through the startup timing. (The plant then recharges the batteries when it is running in its most efficient state.)

BB. · November 2018

Yep Bill,

There are are a plethora of choices out there. The right tool for the right job.

Unfortunately, solar and wind power plants are highly variable... And having to "backup" very large and highly variable power sources is not cheap.

Either you run large base power generators (coal, nuclear) on hot standby (waste of fuel and maintenance; take something like 1/2 or 1 day to "start" one of these plants), or you build a bunch of peaker plants (the faster they start up, the less efficient they tend to be, as you say).

Dispatchable power is "gold" to a utility. Unreliable, virtually uncontrolled random power--Not a lot of help to feeding reliable power to your customers and not worth very much in $/kWH.

-Bill

bill von novak · November 2018

BB. said:

Yep Bill,

There are are a plethora of choices out there. The right tool for the right job.
. . .
Dispatchable power is "gold" to a utility. Unreliable, virtually uncontrolled random power--Not a lot of help to feeding reliable power to your customers and not worth very much in $/kWH.

Agreed. It's not, for example, worth $150/mwhr (what they are paying now for nuclear) or $105/mwhr (coal.) The reason they are buying it in a very big way is that they can get it for $40/mwhr, even if it's unreliable. ($45 for wind) Power for half of what they can get it for from the "traditional" generators is very attractive to them - even if it requires more work on their part through solutions like DR, storage and/or more peaking plants. Because they can spend $50/mwhr for all that stuff and still come out ahead.

Today solar generation fills a need because daytime loads are higher than nighttime loads. So the power comes at the right time for them. Indeed, the big problem they are having right now is the peak that occurs just after sunset (the "duck curve" problem) because while solar lines up fairly well with load, there's a gap at the end of the day where solar generation is dropping off but demand is still high.

In the future, as daytime solar generation grows, it will take more and more effort to integrate it into the grid. That's where the SIWG and Rule 21 came from. And in places they are hitting hard limits, as in Hawaii. That's driving investment in storage and grid control to get around those limits. Right now storage for load shifting isn't economical in most places; it's coming in at around $200/mwhr, and that has to drop to $100/mwhr before solar+storage is cost competitive with nuclear. So storage is being limited to applications like frequency and voltage stabilization, ramp rate control (to allow those peakers to start up) and backup.

Note, though, that it _is_ economical in places with very high power prices (like Hawaii) and we are seeing large buildouts of storage there. That's going to drive innovation in the storage space the same way that it's driven such innovation in the solar space.

Dave Angelini · November 2018

I think it must be noted somewhere that Jerry Brown, the Governor who signed this 2045 law will probably be dead by then.

In case he is not, he has built an Offgrid Home. I know the guy who did the power system

Ampster · November 2018

BB. said:

Peaker plants are quite competitive...
Actual cost of electricity... Fuel costs are an issue (variable depending on cost of fuel, only pay for fuel costs when plant is generating power--Solar, Wind, Hydro do not have fuel costs). And how long they run during the year... Peaker plants may only run weeks out of a year, wind is 15-30% of name plate rating, solar is ~30% of rating, base load fuel and nuclear plants run 99%+ of the time.

-Bill

Yes fuel costs are an issue as well as other operating costs and that is why batteries can economically replace peakers. I saw an installation which I think SCE did where they used batteries to allow the gas combined cycle plant to ramp up. They called it a hybrid and I don't think it was a peaker. It may have been an example of the first phase of a combined cycle plant that @Biill Von Novak mentioned. Here is one view about operating costs that I based my statement on. :
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/just-how-much-business-can-batteries-take-from-gas-peakers#gs.rPPU

Ampster · November 2018

Dave Angelini said:

I think it must be noted somewhere that Jerry Brown, the Governor who signed this 2045 law will probably be dead by then.

In case he is not, he has built an Offgrid Home. I know the guy who did the power system

Yes, and according to actuarial tables so will I. But I will be following the progress until I am dead.
I saw the Youtube video that Jason did on that home and others. His installations look clean. I hope they all work as well as they look. I don't have any reason to suspect that they won't.

Photowhit · November 2018

Ampster said:

Photowhit said:

.............
Remember Tesla building a huge battery for South Australia? It's really just a momentary storage to allow alternative means of energy production to start up! Consider it stores 129 MW enough to supply South Australia for about 1 minute after line losses.

The South Australian battery was not designed as storage for backup. It was designed as a frequency response device and has served that purpose well.

I think that is what I said...lol.

It still stands as the largest battery around, and if you want to be 100% on renewable energy, you will not be drawing energy for a short time as hydrocarbon generators kick in, There will be no hydrocarbon generators to kick in... Might ramp up the only renewable energy that is stored in other means, open gates to crank up water turbines... but that's not going to happen many times before there will be no more energy stored...

Photowhit · November 2018

BB. said:

Amazing how fast something is adopted if it is desirable--And without government subsidies

-Bill

This is the best argument FOR subsidies! As individuals we are reluctant to spend money on emerging technology.

I would suggest we have already fought wars over energy, If we can organize and elect leaders who can see the need for advancement in technology it would be good to support the leaders and the technology. The subsidies make the emerging technology more desirable and help bring market pressure to bear with increased production.

I'm still a fatalist and believe we are doomed, we have no will to reduce population as a 'world' and we will see more and more wars based on limited resources.

Dave Angelini · November 2018

Water is the problem and it is being solved by Californians moving out of this state. Energy is way down the list, I think.

We have the weather but that is lower on the list compared to watching it all burn. I think I read that a million have left the state for Texas in the last 5 years. Good incentives for companies, business friendly government, and pro agriculture.

The ones who are left will just have the state pay for everything. Everyone knows that it all comes from the grocery store.

We have a dinghy dock on our deck with a deck cleat to tie onto when the water level gets up to 3,000 feet

Kind of the opposite water problem but a threat nonetheless. Doomed in a nice way and only a couple hours until 5 o'clock somewhere.

BB. · November 2018

The reason I am against subsidies--Is they seem to never die...

Mohair subsidy anyone... How about the Whaling Museum subsidies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-barnacled-budget/2015/08/14/0539573e-41d6-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ea129a05095

You probably never knew of the federal funding of museums commemorating America’s long-gone whaling industry. The funding existed for nearly nine years, until fiscal 2011, because almost no one knew about it. A mohair subsidy continues six decades after it was deemed a military necessity in the context of the Cold War. The subsidy survives because its beneficiaries are too clever to call attention to it by proclaiming it necessary, which of course it isn’t.

If I choose not to purchase buggy whips... Then the money stops flowing to buggy whip manufacturers.

If somebody puts something in a government budget, it will be there long after the need has gone away. And the government takes that subsidy from me at the point of a gun (every government law comes down to force of law).

-Bill

Dave Angelini · November 2018

Also add the government funded part of the Aerospace industry. Talk about buggy whips. At least there occasionally are people like Elon Musk to bring some sanity.

I remember sourcing parts for satellites that had to be space rated. No matter how much testing was done with new and far cheaper technology, if it had not flown it could not be used. Mind boggling stupid waste from the US government.

Schools all closed today because of good old California smoke. Going to be interesting getting fire insurance this year, it always has been a challenge.

You better put up a few new panels Bill, that is going up also

Maybe the state will take over the utility? That might get your wife to take a drive east!

Horsefly · November 2018

Dave Angelini said:

...
At least there occasionally are people like Elon Musk to bring some sanity.
...

Not often do we hear of an increase in "sanity" due to the presence of Elon Musk!

Dave Angelini · November 2018

Horsefly said:

Dave Angelini said:

...
At least there occasionally are people like Elon Musk to bring some sanity.
...

Not often do we hear of an increase in "sanity" due to the presence of Elon Musk!

I know ! It is easy to point a finger at Elon with Tesla cars and powerwall (even though a test drive is right up there) business practices.
The SEC stuff was just dumb and then there is the "Boring company"....

However, Space X is freaking amazing in what it has done and how it is transforming the Boeings, Lockheed's or LMA's and others.
They have more launches scheduled (that we know of) at Vandenberg in the past 12 and future 12 months than both of the usual suspects.

Ampster · November 2018

Not often do we hear of an increase in "sanity" due to the presence of Elon Musk!

I agree. I know several people that work for SpaceEx and Tesla. What I hear from them is that he has an incredible ability to understand risk. He also solves problems by asking the question, "what are the limits of physics?" and are then exploring any technology that might optimize those limits.
I am clearly a Tesla Fanboy but am too old to introduce Tesla stock Beta into my portfolio. I do wish he would focus on SpaceEx and Tesla and forget the Boring company, Thailand rescue pods, movie star girlfriends, and other distractions. I charged my car at the Hawthorne Supercharger today while in LA and the Hyperlopp experiment is still where it was two years ago along Jack Northrup Blvd. Then as I rounded the corner at Crenshsaw Blvd. the crane was putting pieces of the Boring Company tunnel into the pit for that experiment.

Split to California energy politics (from kWH Grid Solar)

Comments

Categories