The WSJ reports that the hard push for renewable power in California could produce near-term power shortages, particularly in the even the California economy rebounds any time soon.
California's utilities are barreling ahead to try to meet a state mandate to garner 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020, and some officials are concerned the effort might push up electricity prices and crimp supplies.One particular problem is that some popular forms of renewable power, such as solar and wind, are insufficiently reliable to provide base load power because they can be intermittent. They are also not yet cost-competitive with traditional power sources, which is why they are both subsidized and mandated.The state auditor warned this week that the electricity sector poses a "high risk" to the state economy. A staff report from the state energy commission also warns that California could find itself uncomfortably tight on power by 2011 if problems continue to pile up.
Utilities complain that the ambitious renewable-energy mandates, combined with tougher environmental regulations on conventional plants, are compromising their ability to deliver adequate power. . . .
The stresses being felt in California could be a harbinger of problems to come in other states. The federal Waxman-Markey climate-change bill, passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, would require states to obtain about 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, about 4% of U.S. electricity comes from renewables, excluding hydropower.
California's 33% renewable-energy target is so ambitious that it is likely to miss the goal by five years or more, energy officials now concur.
State energy agencies recently concluded it could cost $114 billion or more to meet the 33% mandate, more than double what it might have cost to achieve an earlier 20% requirement. Consumers will bear those costs, one way or another.
Agencies also identified problems with constructing sufficient transmission capacity to move renewable-based energy to cities.
If the goal is to encourage cost-effective renewable energy, without bankrupting consumers or creating supply problems, a revenue-neutral carbon tax would make more sense than the current mix of regulations and subsidies. It would create space for renewables as they become more cost-effective and encourage conservation without creating additional distortions in energy markets or prejudging what percentage of what sort of power source is the "right" amount. It would also be less prone to rent-seeking than massive bureaucratic regimes (a la Waxman Markey).
Why sell anything when you can get paid even more for vaporware?
Meaning that for at least 15 days per year, you have to have sufficient generating capacity to meet base loads. Meaning that you have to make the necessary capital investments for that additional generating capacity, even as you make the capital investment for your solar power production system. And it all has to be maintained and ready to go on line at any moment.
Redundant systems imply cost inefficiency, by definition.
.
.
.
Carbon taxes are a non-starter, and of value only to the statist. If the current regulation and subsidy scheme is adjudged too inefficient... then dump it. No need for bait and switch cash swindles... like fresh taxes.
"revenue-neutral carbon tax"... yeah, that's a good one. I'm always intrigued how the statist will package up their latest scheme.
Nuclear energy is all we need for power. Kowtowing to the nuts, fruits and flakes is sending us into bankruptcy. Are there any politicians out there willing to tell the truth and make a case directly to the public bypassing the entrenched media who don't have the smarts to see past moonbat propaganda.
Funny how that works.
We need to fight off the statists, and get by this little kerfuffle recently, until the above concept takes root. And it will, if we allow it, by getting out of the way.
Why are carbon taxes any more "statist" than income taxes or any other form of taxes? Many folks would argue that consumption taxes -- whether a sales tax or carbon tax -- are actually less statist than taxes on income and property. I understand the concern that tax proposals are likely to result in increased taxes rather than an exchange -- and this is a real concern -- but if such concerns could be addressed, why should we be more concerned about carbon taxes than the available alternatives?
JHA
Actually not really, since night time demand is approximately 30% lower than peak (4PM or so) demand. Thus, you can use solar to make up quite a bit of that peak demand without worrying about valley demand (and since the cost of delivering power is mostly capital expenses for building the plants/grid, the effective price difference is only the difference in peak efficiency between solar and whatnot).
Does the 20% nuclear really not count as renewable?
And it could easily be made revenue-neutral by using the proceeds to reduce the income tax. Again totally aside from the environmental issue, I would prefer that since the marginal tax on my family income greatly exceeds any amount I might pay in carbon tax.
I suspect "Rosetta's Stone" made the mistake of taking Mark Levin's book and his tirade against "statists" seriously.
And, NO DRILLING. It is far better to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to foreigners than it is to tap resources that we already own. May Obama bless the USA!!
Um, Cornellian, you have this little problem called "night-time."
The timing of sunrise and sunset is anything but unreliable.
Presumably not renewable since you can't reuse the uranium, though it also doesn't generate CO2. Every option has its pros and cons.
Why are carbon taxes any more "statist" than income taxes or any other form of taxes?
You're forgetting about your little "revenue nuetral" modifier, which is what makes your statement farcical.
Many folks would argue that consumption taxes -- whether a sales tax or carbon tax -- are actually less statist than taxes on income and property.
I might make that case as well, theoretically, although practically speaking, a sales tax might be even more costly to administer and comply with than the current income tax, and would provide even more opportunity for gamesmanship, as we discussed who and when it would be applied. We'd likely wind up with the same entire income analysis, upon which we'd be piggybacking your wondrous new creation. Complexity, my good man, is the camoflage behind which the statist operates gleefully.
Unfortunately, I suspect that to bring this revenue nuetrality firmly about would require some Constitutional tinkering, and I don't foresee that happening. Absent that, it's just statist reshuffling, and the next shuffle will bring about... what exactly? So, reality says we have to fight on every front, meaning we must fight tax increases wherever they arise: tax rates and tax species of all types.
Not to mention, you're explicitly and implicitly conflating the need for revenue with energy policy. No need for that, as again it's just introducing unneeded complexity to policy. Just because some want us to expand on current attempts at that sorta foolishness, doesn't mean it's a good idea, or we should just surrender to it for fear of something worse coming along.
Also not to mention, taxing carbon explicitly and implicitly acknowledges that carbon is something to be scorned... a "pollutant"... as 5 blackrobed fascists have apparently decided for us. 'til that point, we could dismiss them as usurpers, until such time as we get around to dismissing them, or they die. You're advocating affirming the "scientific" analysis of a few technically illiterate lawyers... and that don't fly.
Go for simplification. You'll find some waxing, then. This latest scheme fragments, and if passed, the usual suspects will take advantage of that known fragmentation, and gain succor from chosen portions of the fragmented.
Now they want to add antoher $ 100 BILLION dollars to the cost of their economy ???? For something made out of Unobtainium ?
Where's 'The Big One' ( earthquake) when you really need one ???
Meaning you have to capital invest to support 70% of base load, for the night-time, so his point holds.
You have to have firm capacity for a certain minimum base load, and that firm capacity can't be dependent upon Mother Gaia's cooperation on any given day. And you have to build and pay for that firm capacity, in addition to any capacity built to take advantage of Mother Gaia's intermittent cooperation.
Redundant capacity promotes cost inefficiency, and drives up base cost. Period. For crisakes, man, what part of this is confusing?
We are either now or soon will be able to reuse all nuke byproducts, and if/when that becomes true, nuke power should likely be considered as a renewable.
"If such concerns could be addressed" is on a par with "if we can build a perpetual motion machine". Forcing a tax increase in one area to be accompanied by a tax decrease elsewhere is about as possible as building a perpetual motion machine--it's impossible for different reasons, of course, but you're still not going to do it, and an energy policy that makes that assumption is ill-advised.
The answer is simple--build nukes, lots of them. That is, the answer for those who want to provide power is nukes. Cap and trade for the greenies is really about making a hammer to reduce consumption of all types drastically.
If you want to address his point, which was about the relative merits taxing v. cap-and-trade, name some tax that isn't statist.
And of course any tax could theoretically be revenue neutral, so don't descend to that silly argument. No economist would support it.
The latter is for the purpose of revenue; the former is for the (usually stated) purpose of creating an effective ban on bullets as well as creating a greater paper trail for bullet sales.
To your point, taxes that are purposely designed to change consumer behavior have generally been called “sin” taxes. CapNtrade is a sin tax.
Nick
I’m with you. I don’t see why anyone needs electricity at night, or when the sun don’t shine or the winds don’t blow.
Come on people, man up.
The noted free-market economist Peter Schiff argues all taxes should be on consumption and none on income.
But of course, either form of taxation is "statist." And I sincerely wish the high tone of this blog were not cheapened by those parroting the latest buzz words from radio talk shows.
Pure gold, Richard. Comedy gold.
In both of those cases (one proposed, one implemented) the supporters specifically did/do wish to limit revenue; they were successful in the case of marijuana taxes.
So the examples are not about revenue, but about the state imposing its will. Those taxes seem to me to be much "more statist" than other taxes.
Wave could. If it can be made to work at all.
It would provide about 0.000001% of what's needed.
Does Schiff argue that taxes should be on consumption of "bad" things, but not on "good" things? I think that is the point being made, not whether taxes should be on income or consumption. I would think taxing the income that an autoworker earns from his/her labor manufacturing cars at a higher rate than the income that a stockholder makes from selling stocks that appreciated in value over time would be just as "statist" as the consumption example given.
Hydroelectric generally is generally tapped out. There's only so many dams you can build without screwing up existing rights of way. Heck, there's a strong environmentalist push towards destroying existing dams, given the harm many do to the local wildlife, especially migrating species of fish. Regardless, as others have noted, much of California is desert anyway. It's not like Alaska, where there's more water than anyone knows what to do with.
The part where you either didn't read what I wrote or didn't understand it.
If demand is peak at 1000 units at 4PM but 700 units at midnight, then it does me no harm to build 300 units of power that are solar and only available 9AM-9PM. I couldn't possibly need those units after 9PM anyways.
Well, however magnificent your spelling, you too appear to be a little short on the logic. And short of an argument, it appears.
Again, there is nothing any more "statist" in one tax as opposed to another.
Of course there is. Taxes that ratchet themselves up automatically are automatically more statist than those that don't. They confer revenue streams automatically, which is statist nirvana. You should apply some of your impressive logical skills, and explain if you think otherwise.
That was Adler's point and instead of refuting it you reduced yourself to citing talk-show jargon.
I don't listen to talk shows. Maybe I should, and I'd be as logical as you.
If you want to address his point, which was about the relative merits taxing v. cap-and-trade, name some tax that isn't statist.
We have an existing revenue stream, and Adler, as a confirmed statist, is seeking to conflate revenue with one of his statist policy jewels, the war on CO2. I've explained why conflating policies is a bad idea, and you haven't responded with anything other than blather.
And of course any tax could theoretically be revenue neutral, so don't descend to that silly argument. No economist would support it.
To make this statement implies you're not wise to the world. It won't be revenue neutral. Not theoretically, and not in practice. There is a way to do that, as explained, but it won't be utilized.
In any event, Adler made a play for statism, and I've responded, but you should let him speak for himself, as you appear incapable of speaking to this topic in any event. If you disagree with my response, do so, but in the meantime, why don't you go take a run and jump at yourself?
Of course, Southern California is powered by the damns on the Columbia river way up in Oregon/Washington (it makes up the border). We have a huge DC line just to transmit it all.
I consider myself an environmentalist and I consider nuclear the best bet we have for independent carbon-free power using technology we already have. So :-P
Nukes are alright for baseload power, but solar and wind can help on top with a special for for natural gas since it's the easiest to ramp up/down.
Of course it does you "harm". You have to pay for those 300 units of solar capacity. And, you also have to pay for 1000 units of firm capacity to meet peak demand at 4:00PM, and have it maintained, staffed and on line, in case Mother Gaia isn't cooperating that day.
In your scenario, you have to build and pay for 1,300 units of firm capacity, in order to meet the 1,000 unit peak demand.
It costs more to do what you're asking. Again, what is confusing about this?
I believe you need to check your math. Follow this example - first number is base, second is peak. Sticking with the 700 base and 300 peak capacity, with 1000 peak at 4:00pm and <=700 from 9pm to 9am.
12:00am - 700 + 0 = 700, fine
6:00am - 700 + 0 = 700, fine
9:00am - 700 + 300 = 1000, fine
4:00pm - 700 + 300 = 1000, fine
9:00pm - 700 + 300 = 1000, fine
repeat.
Of course, there is a possibility that more than 700 would be required for a short period in the morning of evening, but this is pretty easy to deal with based on a power company's pricing structure, which can offer incentives for huge uses like factories and test facilities to offset their usage slightly.
That is the theory behind having excess capacity for peak operation - you have less total capital, and less total fuel burn. In general, setting up the power supply with base/peak has cost advantages since peak sources are usually less capital intensive.
Me engineer. Math do good. English not so much.
Earlier it was asserted that the sun shined 350 days a year. That leaves 15 days a year that the 300 units isn't available. So either you have rolling black outs on those days (30% of the users approx 4% of the year - basically everyone gets 5 days/year w/o power) or you need to have 1000 units of baseline generating capacity available even though it's only needed 15 days out of the year.
That's the problem with solar &wind - not that they aren't useful, it's that they aren't reliable. But it's not a given that we have to have build extra generating capacity - perhaps we're willing to forgo reliability.
Most reports I have seen indicate that wind, at least in the US, is very cost competitive (eg, here) and here).
This may be because only the most cost effective projects have moved forward in America while other countries have been more aggressive in expanding wind power, but
I would recommend stored hydro as a both a peak power source and a load balancing mechanism. In short, use surplus power to pump water to the top of a hydro system, then let it run down when other sources are not meeting demand. Such systems can range from 75% to 85% efficiency.
This is also a very misleading statement. There is NO single source of any type except maybe, maybe nuclees a truly stable base power supply. Coal and electrical plants have significant downtime for maintenance, a commonly forgotten expense. This is generally dealt with through purchasing excess supply at high rates from other producers during plant closures. A robust system of offloading already exists to deal with this, and it is also being applied to wind power.
It is true that wind would require higher total capacities than coal plants; the estimates I've worked with are on the order of 2.5:1, to account for the fact that the turbines are incremental. But when you spread out the wind farms, the baseloading becomes highly manageable as some farms will be working almost all the time; the addition of some inexpensive gas turbine peak loading capacity can easily smooth out the usage. Add that all up, crunch the numbers, and you find the supposed base loading problem of wind power is actually a politically driven fallacy.
As for solar, it is not good for baseloading, but a great peak loading technology; as said before, the sun is out during peak hours, and also strongest during seasonally high power periods (i.e. hot summer days.) Hydro is easily the worst in terms of availability when needed; also it moves in natural opposition to climate, as droughts cut hydro off at the knees during periods of high temps and thus high power usage.
If I may respectfully disagree. I tried to stay a bit simple with my example, but you raise a very reasonable point it doesn't cover. As I just mentioned above, solar availability moves naturally with seasonal peak usage. Energy usage is highest on hot days, which also tend to be when solar is most effective. Thus, it naturally aligns with peak usage. On the other hand, coal plants have downtime, too. When you take it to a highly detailed engineering level of calculation, solar and coal come out very close in hot sunny climates in terms of availability for peak output.
Now, solar is not always the most cost effective capital solution, and it's not very effective in large parts of the country. But in certain areas (i.e. the desert southwest), it makes a lot of sense.
I also think that solar (eventually) has a place, but not for baseline generation. It's simply too variable for that. Sure, fossil fuel generating facilities have downtime, but that's scheduled downtime. It's not the downtime that gets you; it's the unscheduled downtime.
Where I think solar has a place is in distributed generating capacity. Rooftops, windows, etc currently absorb a lot of solar energy that's at best going to waste and more often adding to the cooling load. And as you correctly point out, it aligns nicely with peak demand. So if big boxes, light industrial parks, etc could add (cost-effective) solar panels they could divert some fraction of their cooling power requirements from the grid.
Just don't expect to rely on it.
I completely concur on the distributed generating point.
The other thing is, if you were going to invent the near perfect power source to meet everybody's requirements, it would look a lot like nuclear power. I'll believe the left is serious about the impact of global warming when they quit playing patty cake with silly wind and solar and embrace nuclear, which is an actual, real world solution we could put into motion immediately without assuming any ladders. And if you get the lawyers and regulators out of the way it will end up saving money.
Breeder reactors. (Okay, not exactly the same thing, but a great technology and getting better.)
* * *
Oh, and California doesn't have 350 days a sunshine a year. Not even close. The eastern desert has about 300. (There is enough sunshine the rest of the time to power solar arrays, but only at some fraction of a clear day.)
No, I think you should go back and check yours. The stated peak demand given was 1,000 units, at 4:00PM.
That peak demand MUST be met, meaning some type of non-solar, non-wind production capacity must be in place, and must provide that 1,000 units.
If you suddenly want to drop the peak demand to 700 units, you better check with Oren, because his customers might be a little angry if you unilaterally do so.
The stated want was for an additional 300 units of solar power, meaning the total production capacity is to be 1,300 units, to meet the stated peak demand requirement of 1,000 units.
Perhaps you misread the given that Oren provided. Go back and check your work.
Why are you all so confused with this? Is this not untuitively obvious, that peak demand MUST be met, and not with means dependent on the weather, wind or some other variable?
1,300 units of production capacity is, all things equal, 30% greater investment cost than 1,000 units. It is also approaching 30% more expensive to operate and maintain than only 1,000 units.
...this is pretty easy to deal with based on a power company's pricing structure, which can offer incentives for huge uses like factories and test facilities to offset their usage slightly.
We already do this, and have been for a century or more, perhaps. Maybe you think you've hit upon something new, but suggest you look into this a bit more, and educate yourself.
Plants shed load during peak, and I know this, because I've been one of the shedders. They get a cost break for their commitment to shed when required.
Again, catch up. We're doing this already.
That is the theory behind having excess capacity for peak operation - you have less total capital, and less total fuel burn.
Huh? Excess capacity costs more capital... always.
I need to get right with these new methods you've discovered! I've always had to pay for stuff, but you seem to be getting it for free. And my clients will love me. What's your secret?
So you're modulating the amplitide of the peak demand? Great idea. You should have come up with it 100 years ago, when that first came out. You'd be rich now.
The utility near my house issues A/C cutout boxes, which allows them to modulate the peak demand by area, as necessary. Industries have long opened night shifts, to take advantage of cheaper utility costs at night, as well as take advantage of large capital investment around the clock.
In general, setting up the power supply with base/peak has cost advantages since peak sources are usually less capital intensive.
Not sure what you're getting at here, you should explain this.
But fyi, peak demand, base demand, sustained peak, instantaneous peak, average daily... these and others are all terms used to size utility systems. Each has their use, and each has been used long before a century ago, fyi. We've been supplying water a lot longer than we've been supplying electricity, and the methods used to calculate and size these systems are fairly common sensical, and well known. I doubt you've invented anything novel, but I'm open if you have anything to add here. But, I doubt utility companies are unaware of anything you'd be adding.
.
.
.
Sure, solar power production aligns well with A/C demand. That is the only place for it, imo. Now, you need to make it cost competitive with other methods of power production, and it's a go. Let me know if that ever happens.
And no, subsidies and tax breaks don't count. It has to stand on its own 2 feet. Right now, it don't appear it can.
The government wants to mandate electric cars and other transportation, so this must be factored in as well. Of course California is doing its best to reduce energy consumption by making it impossible to do business or live there.
Solar? No way.
"Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels" AP Saturday, March 21, 2009:
"Environmental Concerns Threaten Solar Power Expansion in California Desert" AP Saturday, April 18, 2009:
OK. Had enough? I could go on. Did you ever play three card monte? If you don't know who the mark is, you are the mark. Deal with it.
"Renewable" Energy is an elaborate scam. And you are the mark.
First I'm not sure why you accuse me of claiming credit for inventing existing ideas for power management. I was simply bringing to light techniques currently available that mitigate current power grid effects, and will also be used to mitigate the effects of variability with wind power. I'm glad you are aware of them, and apologize if my assumption that you didn't due to the content of your first post drew ire. Still, to be fair, they will significantly mitigate the impact of solar energy being used for peak power.
Also, I appreciate the suggestion to become more educated about the power generation industry. As I am involved in the industry, I always look for new opportunities to learn more.
To answer your queries about why <i>"In general, setting up the power supply with base/peak has cost advantages since peak sources are usually less capital intensive.</i>" and <i>Huh? Excess capacity costs more capital... always</i>, I will make the assumption you aren't intimately familiar with power plant economics. If I am wrong, I mean no offense, but wish to be clear just in case.
A coal plant has immense start up and shut down costs, even for a planned shut down, and throttle down very poorly. Unplanned shutdown costs are an order of magnitude higher. Peak-specific infrastructure is designed to have low start up costs (Gas turbines are a great example) but usually has ~23% thermal efficiency vs. ~30% for base infrastructure, and use NG which is currently ~3x the cost of coal. So, you can design your plant to output peak power all the time as you suggest, and pay for the excess fuel to keep the equipment running (because throttling isn't an option, and shutting down a section of a coal plant is prohibitively expensive.) Or, you can go down a frame size, and run that plant at a lower power output. The rest of the power output is made up of, say, gas turbines which only run 3 or 4 hours a day, but can be shut off the remaining 20 hours with virtually no start up cost. This arrangement has a higher capital cost than building a coal plant with one frame size larger. However, the operating cost of the plant with gas turbines will be much, much less, since fuel is the largest single expense. If you don't believe me on the numbers I'm happy to put together a representative sample analysis, but I don't have the time to do so at this minute. Thus, buying excess capital, which is turned off for 5/6 of the time, can provide a low enough annual operating cost to provide a positive ROI (even though the peak capital is less thermally efficient as well!) Of course, a throttlable IGCC is better yet, but that's not quite mature as of now.
<i>That peak demand MUST be met, meaning some type of non-solar, non-wind production capacity must be in place, and must provide that 1,000 units.</i>
To illustrate why I think we are missing each other on this point, what would you do in the following situation which although hypothetical here happens reasonably often. you are a plant manager at a 1000MW coal plant in your home state. During routine inspection, a main boiler shows a significant hot spots and there are multiple steam valve leaks, triggering an unscheduled shutdown. What do you do for the 48 hours the plant is down to perform repairs, and are unable to make base power, let alone peak power?
The irony is that since China isn't bound by any Climate Chage BS, Cali will become an energy exporter to the rest of North America.
And we get to see the Berkley crowd marched off to their utopian labor camps.
Win - win.
And then one day clouds appear.
What now, genius?
When our economy crashes and it's well on its way with this type of legislation, they will happily sit around in the dark - saving the planet with NO concept what they have done to the once great United States of America.
Roseburg Forest Products has a cogeneration plant ready to start up and the environmentalists have stopped it in court - mostly on air quality concerns.
PacifiCorp had gone all the way through FERC relicensing of the hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. The State Water Control Board has indicated it will not issue a water quality permit so relicensing cannot be completed. Indian tribes and environmentalists want four of the dams to be removed.
Fuels build-up in the 6 National Forests in my county have reached the level of serious threat to the public. Last year, 200,000 acres burned. This year, we already have a 3000 acre fire roaring toward us. Environmentalists routinely appeal almost all US Forest Service projects. (They just appealed one that had no timber harvest - it was purely a cleanup of burned over area outside of a town. The project was part of the Community’s Wildfire Protection Plan.)
My county has hundreds of thousands of acres of forest needing fuel reduction which could feed another biomass plant on a sustainable rotation, but no one will invest in one because the environmentalists will play havoc with supply and operation.
The federal energy bill excludes hydropower and biomass from the National Forests from “counting” as alternative energy.
This is why they are not meeting targets in northern CA.
Probably because you're trumpeting basic utilities practices, which have been in place for at least 100 years in the case of electricity and for centuries longer in other utilities, and presenting them as novel, and as newly found measures that might alleviate current issues.
We are already doing what you're describing. All of it. Every bit of it. You've provided nothing new in your post, so I'll assume you have nothing new to add, and that current value engineering practices are still current (and I'm questioning whether you're intimate with current engineering practice in this or any area).
"Still, to be fair, they will significantly mitigate the impact of solar energy being used for peak power."
No, solar energy cannot "significantly mitigate" the peak power demand. It cannot be included in the peak power demand calculation, as it cannot be considered firm capacity, as Mother Gaia's vote removes it from any firm capacity calculation. No offense, but you do appear ignorant of the subject matter, and have apparently never planned and sized and managed utilities.
Now, should you wish to consider another type of "peak", as in August peak, or strictly A/C loading, there is room for that as mentioned, but again, as solar power isn't cost effective at the moment, value engineering practice tells us that smart communities will veer away from solar power, in all but select cases. And that's not including the NIMBY business mentioned above. Solar is a fetish, not a solution. It contributes only at the margins, if ever.
Again, let me know when the cost efficiency of solar matches current technology, without subsidy.
"I will make the assumption you aren't intimately familiar with power plant economics."
You assume wrong. Plant economics are the same in every industry, the world over. Capital investment costs money. Hardware costs money. You implied you're getting it for free. You implied you'd be buying 1,300 units of capital capacity for the price of 1,000 units. The reality is that 300 additional units costs more money, as solar production and transmission capacity, and land acquisition and development, is not cheap as we know. Again, give me your secret, because my clients will kill for that knowledge.
"Peak-specific infrastructure is designed to have low start up costs..."
Yes, and it better, because it's peak specific, and you've purchased it for specific cases.
Your description of "utility economics", and the various equipment mixes required to meet various utility demands, and the costs associated with those various equipment mixes, is, again, current practice, and one we've been engaging in long before electricity came on the scene.
You're presenting nothing novel here, much as you apprear to think so, apparently.
Of course, we all intuitively know this to be the case, as we all use equipment mixes and capital investment and operating cost in our own lives, personally, in our homes. That's how we know that those practices are common, and is what makes your discourse on these common utility practices so trite. We are all using them. Homes in the South are designed with electric resistance heating, because it's very, very cheap to buy that equipment, even though the cost to operate it (the few days per year it operates) is very, very high.
On the other hand, in the North, we buy $3-10,000 furnace equipment and systems to heat our homes, because the operating costs for those furnaces are so much cheaper than resistance heating that it makes the total lifecycle cost competitive to purchase that more expensive equipment.
The above calculations, ones (perhaps unknowingly) made by every homeowner in the land, are the same calculations you've long-windedly made in your discourse above. They are common, and well known, and for centuries now. Everybody reading this post is making them, they are so common. Duh.
Engineering economics and value engineering as practiced within the utility industry are well known animals, so well known that even the common man is practicing them, at home. It seems that you, like some or many, are unaware of that fact.
I think you're missing the point because you have no understanding of what peak demand is. Perhaps you mean another type of peak, and if so, you should define it.
Peak demand must be met. There is no debate on this point, there is only those who don't understand what "peak" is. Again, perhaps you mean something else, and if so, define it.
Your hypothetical is not relevant to the point, and is an example of poor planning, and likely an indicator of your lack of understanding of what "peak" truly is.
Utility planning must provide for firm capacity at peak demand. There is no debate here. It is an absolute, and one you appear not to recognize.
In your hypothetical, there has been insufficient/shoddy utility planning, because it appears that insufficient firm capacity is available to meet base demand, let alone peak demand.
It could also mean that the utility planners, like you apparently, were ignorant of what base demand, peak demand and firm capacity truly are.
I doubt that there is a utility company in this country displaying that level of ignorance, however. I mean, outside California that is, and even that is likely due to the kooky legislature, and not the utility planners.
.
.
.
So, we seem to have arrived at a touchstone here, and some remaining questions for you:
1. Do you have anything to add to the discussion that is not already a known-known, and already in current utility practice?
2. Can you demonstrate that "alternative energy" sources, absent subsidy, are cost competitive with existing sources?
Your general point, however, is correct--because the sun sometimes doesn't shine and the wind sometimes doesn't blow utilities can really only use these resources as substitutes for existing generation capacity. If the cost of wind/solar are less than natural gas, basically, then this can save utilities a bit of money. If not, the green initiatives cost money.
This is a huge problem in this country, not just in your county.
Perhaps Adler, rather than focusing on blending select policy fetishes into a cobbled statist bliss, could find a way to focus on one specific policy issue, one that all reasonable might agree upon, and address it directly, unencumbered by fetish. Excess fuels on our forest floors would be one such issue.
A 1000 MWe nuke can be built on half a square mile. A 1000 MWe solar plant takes about 50 square miles after counting night losses. The solar flux is (more or less) constant and can't be increased by technological innovation. Building and maintaining a plant of that size (collectors have to be repaired and cleaned) will cost an awful lot too.
Wealth and power consumption are statistically correlated (ask Al Gore). You may want to be poor. I don't.
I thought that the Great Leader believed in Power to the People. I guess not.
Blue, a "throttled peak demand" is not peak demand, by definition, and why I'm pressing the point with this guy. It is absolutely imperative that the terms be used precisely. Too much opportunity for smoke to be blown about, when the terms get garbled, as we see.
A throttled peak demand has been calculated for many, many decades now. Nothing new here. As mentioned, my utility provider throttles or shuts down individual A/C's intermittently, depending on regional conditions and demands. And of course, major users shed load as required on peak days.
We must identify peak demand, and size our peak capacity to meet it. Absolute requirement, and alternatives cannot be included within this peak demand calculation. Throttling can reduce peak demand, but it cannot eliminate the need to meet whatever we firmly establish as peak demand.
The problem with wind and to some extent solar is that spinning reserve is required to maintain service.
If that spinning reserve is natural gas driven, you need to burn gas for no electrical power.
Cloudy day means less AC demand, so you won't be anywhere near peak demand anyway.
Cloudy days do mean less AC demand, so peak demand would not apply, except for one thing...
In very few cases is the generating plant (be it solar, wind, coal or nuclear) in the middle of where the power is being used. For example, how many power plants are in downtown Los Angeles, for example?
Obviously, none. So, given that generating capacity is always removed some physical distance from point of use, you have to guarantee that adverse weather conditions at the generating site match those at the point of use. Not to be snarky, but if we could control the weather that well, then climate change would be a non-issue.
There is another issue, that of a partly cloudy day. While I am aware of the use of focusing mirrors, etc., to alleviate that, the bottom line is that on a partly cloudy day, the power output from any sort of solar plant will vary, in an unpredictable fashion. The electric grid will not like that. So, basically, what has to happen is that the utility has to make a judgement on what level of reliable power that the solar farm will generate for what period of time, and "throttle" the power back to match that. (i.e. if a solar farm can generate 300 units when operating at peak efficiency on a clear day, on a day with 50% cloudcover, it may only be able to reliably and consistently provide 30 units of power.) That also brings another issue to the fore, how much does 50% cloud cover reduce demand from peak demand?
Of course, given that we are speaking of Southern California, and not the country as a whole, the problems are actually less in that limited geographic area than they are on a more nation-wide basis.
I happen to live in the Southeastern US, where we have huge demands for A/C, even at night, due to the extremes of humidity seen in our area. This climate tends to not cool off as much as night as desert areas, and cloudiness does not really affect the air temperature as much (i.e. on a cloudy day we may be in the upper 80's to low 90's, versus lower mid to high 90's on a clear day.)
Not only that, but we have many more days of cloudcover than the 15 or so postulated for CA (at least the southern portion), and days with little to no wind. The phrase "Dog Days of Summer" describe exactly those kinds of days.
So, solar power is problematic here, wind power is slightly more feasible, but unfortunately, the wind tends to be more consistent and more favorable at night, when the power is needed least.
We use lots of hydro power in the Southeast, in the TVA territories, but that is basically used as a supplement, because as stated earlier, droughts and low water in rivers and lakes tend to occur when you need the most power. Thus, hydro power is used mainly as a supplement to base load and for some peak demand, but is not planned for meeting peak demand.
Bottom line, the only effective, reliable, and cost-effective power available right now is coal.
Nuclear would be great, but it is not cost-effective due to regulation, environmental concerns (founded or unfounded), and NIMBY problems.
Natural gas would be cost-effective as well, but not so much as coal, or nuclear, if the costs of nuclear reflected "needed" costs, as opposed to our current "social" or "political" cost penalties currently attached to nuclear power.
In conclusion -- If it were possible for solar, wind, or other "renewable" forms of energy were so great, the for-profit utilities would implement them on their own. But those technologies, while promising, are not currently up to full-scale use.
It is interesting that nuclear plants are still in operation, even with the huge regulatory and other cost burdens attached to them. If we were more reasonable about that (like Japan, France, and most other industrialized nations), what do you think utilities would do, given that they already find it economically viable to operate nuclear plants under current conditions?
Between the ad hominen attacks and your insistence on such an (incorrectly) strict definition of peak demand, I now understand you have no idea what you are talking about, but that you attempt to make up for correctness with volume and emphasis.
The specific definition of peak demand varies by utility company; usually marked as the highest single half hour or hour period of a given day, but sometime measured to the quarter hour or minute (though consumer terminology sometimes lists this as the highest power usage in a given month.) Peak power is by definition a fuzzy concept, as it is for any time period a given source so chooses. Understanding terms you choose to use is important, by your own account.
Also, your insistence that peak demand must be met is asinine. That is why all power plants first cycle their frequency from 60-50Hz, and if that's not enough, use their hedge contracts with alternate providers (the answer to my question, to which your response clearly illustrating you have no idea what you are talking about.) If an existing plant can't meet current demand (which happens in the real world, even if not in your fantasyland of omniscient power managers who have equipment that never requires service), it purchases the extra from an alternate peaker, whose excess capital is paid for in spades during times of high demand and high prices. A distributed system of wind/solar will do the same, and with intelligently structured contracts and distributed farms, the system will be able to met demand using existing and established methods, which you so ineloquently illustrated are already developed and functional.
Thus your posed question of what happens when then sun goes down is answered correctly, and in the real world, though perhaps not for rosetta's fantasyland. It also explains why my first example was correct, and not the 1300 you erroneously calculate. If sun is gone for a day, the excess is made up with frequency adjustments and hedge contracts. If the sun is gone too many days (like in Minnesota or Wisconsin) then solar doesn't make sense.
There is tons of literature out there placing solar as cost neutral for peaking somewhere between 2014-2019. Wind will be sooner; if you factor in land usage cost, it is competitive today, and energy companies are realizing a huge profit with the subsidies added. Wind/Solar may never be 100% of production, but targets of 30% by 2030 are very realizable in a cost competitive manner.
Thanks for the excellent and informative piece, that sort of intelligent post is the reason I read VC.
Then solar isn't for you. New Mexico, on the other hand, has cool dry nights and very few clouds.
One size does not fit all.
In CA, industrial users are offered deep rate discounts in exchange for the right of the power company to cut their power on a limited number of peak-demand summer days. This is a fantastic deal for all involved.
Oren,
you are very correct on the usage and value. Power shedding was alluded to in earlier comments, but unfortunately Rosetta dismissed it out of hand as existing technology and therefore somehow not applicable to solar or wind power, and in his infinite wisdom deemed it a worthless contribution to the discussion.
Hedge contracts generate no power. They are a mechanism to call upon real generating capacity. The problem for both wind and solar is that much more of that standby capacity must be build to accomodate the variability of wind and solar than with coal or natural gas plants. Contracts are not enough, there must be standby generating capacity. Some chunk of that reserve will need to be spinning reserve, which is not cheap.
BTW, is "frequency adjustments" your term for brownouts?
If either is cost competitive then there is no need for mandates or subsidy. BTW, are you including the added cost to build additional the standby generating capacity required for wind/solar?
Frequency adjustments can range from unnoticeable to a brownout, depending on the severity.
you are very correct that hedge contracts don't generate electricity, but they are an effective mechanism for transferring power from regions with excess to regions with lack of supply (currently from coal plants being down.) But recall, there is already 30% excess capacity using coal plants due to their maintenance and down time. Plus, there is significant peaker capacity which already exists. Thus, wind (and solar) can't supplant all power gen. But, I see great promise in bio-stock IGCC's or SOFC's in the future for baselaod. To me, the most convincing argument against wind and solar is that IGCC or SOFC is a more cost effective technology to invest in.
The numbers I loosely cite incorporate the cost of low utilization for wind power. The utilization of onshore wind turbine is generally ~30%, coal ~70%, nuclear ~90%. Currently, with tax subsidies, wind is a clear winner, thus the rapid expansion of wind power. Without subsidies, the costs are very close; wind will likely eclipse coal eventually, given the rising cost of pollution mitigation from coal plants (mercury control will be a huge hit.) For wind to be competitive now, it needs a utilization ~40%, which should be possible with investment in technology improvements. BTW, offshore wind turbines have much higher utilization, but are subject to nimby by all those pesky oceanfront owners.
For a good analysis of costs which support this, see here. It is pretty evenhanded, I think.
Very fair point. Note, I am not trying to argue that changing the frequency is a good thing, just that it is a routinely employed strategy when peak power cannot be met, in response to a previous assertion that peak power "MUST" be met by power companies (which it clearly does not, even with existing power sources.)
My apologies, I must have missed the earlier reference. That's unfortunate about his dismissal of shedding, it's a fantastic tool.
Given the time-variation of peak power demand, it would save us a huge amount of money if we could transfer power from the east coast grid to the west coast, even after paying the 10% transmission cost.
Those numbers understate the need for standby generating capacity for wind. With nuke and coal the plants are mostly at 100% except when down for predictable maintenance. Refueling a nuke plant can be planned years in advance. Unscheduled down time due to accidents and such are rare.
Lets take coal as an example at 70%. If a market needs 700 units of power, and the coal plants generate 100 units each, then you would need 10 coal plants. Seven on line and generating and three down for maintenance. To cover unscheduled down time add 100 units of standby capacity.
Now look at wind. See link below. Wind may well need to gave standby capacity built at a ratio approaching 1:1. To say that wind is economical without taking into account the need to build additional standby capacity is ignoring a large part of the cost.
This is a graph of Danish wind power produced over a large area. Note the wild variability of produced power.
However, excess gas capacity isn't as expensive, because most of the expense is the fuel, not the construction.
I would love to be able to have some ball-park numbers about the cost of unused gas-powered capacity.
No, my attacks aren't ad hom. I'm pointing out that you are clearly ignorant of the concept of peak demand, and have clearly never been involved in the calculation of peak demand for any utility. We are all ignorant of something, and you are ignorant of what peak demand is, and apparently haven't had experience with real utilities planning.
No shame in being ignorant, unless you're blathering your ignorance and blowing smoke, as you are. However, the problem is, your ignorance is shared by the Cali legislature, and if you go up to the top of this discussion, you'll see that the root of the problem there is that the Cali legislature, similar to you, has not a clue of what peak demand is, and thus has not provided sufficient firm capacity to meet it. As you, they've first incorrectly calculated peak demand, and second, legislated alternative energy sources to meet the bogus peak demand they calculated, and alternative energy sources cannot be used to supply a peak demand, as they are not firm capacity.
So, first things first, as you need to be educated on what peak demand is, to remove your ignorance. Peak demand is first of all... a demand. Calculation of peak demand has not a whit to due with calculation of supply, even if your further long-winded discourse above attempts to do precisely that.
Peak demand doesn't care how it is met, how it is supplied, it simply must be met... somehow... with firm capacity... and not by alternative energy pleadings to Mother Gaia. Therefore peak demand must be precisely calculated, and then met and supplied, firmly. It is a simple 2-step process... establish demand... and then supply that demand. That is utility planning, in a nutshell, and I'd hope I don't have to test and grade you on your comprehension of this.
Now, "frequency modulation" and "hedge contracts" and "intelligently structured contracts" and other cute buzz words you've introduced are, well, cute, much like your bogus hypothetical earlier was cute. However, they are related to supply... not demand. You've skipped a step, and it's only a 2-step process, so your error sorta sticks out.
Further, your bounteous buzzwords re supply are merely examples of what we are already doing to economize energy production and supply, much like we purchase our residential heating equipment, as mentioned earier. Again, you have brought nothing new to this discussion... these are practices that have been in use for a century or more. So, the answer to my first question earlier above is "no", you bring nothing to the discussion that is not already a known-known.
So then, we must still complete the first step in our process, and calculate peak demand.
The specific definition of peak demand varies by utility company...
No, it doesn't. The specific definition of peak demand is a constant. The specific definition of peak demand supply is a variable, using all of the centuries old methodologies discussed earlier, at the utility's and regulators' discretion. But of course, we won't get to the supply aspect until we arrive at the 2nd step in our process, after we remove your ignorance re demand.
Again, you seem ignorant of the precise methodologies used in utility planning, sizing and management. Have you ever actually done any of this work, for a utility? It seems curious that you're this unknowledgeable of the subject matter, if you truly have.
"Peak power is by definition a fuzzy concept, as it is for any time period a given source so chooses. Understanding terms you choose to use is important, by your own account."
Yes, terms are important, and you may learn that someday.
No, peak demand is not a fuzzy concept. The present and future customers do or will exist, and we calculate their demand, and confirm it through real data generated in the execution phase. What part of this is confusing to you? Again I ask, have you ever been involved in this process... even on the periphery?
Also, your insistence that peak demand must be met is asinine.
You must either withdraw this statement, or surrender credibility. This is one of the most foolish sentences I've ever read. You seem as a child.
"It also explains why my first example was correct, and not the 1300 you erroneously calculate."
No, your first example was incorrect. If peak demand is 1,000 units, then it must be met with firm capacity, not alternative sources. You want an additional 300 units of solar alternative, to supplement that firm capacity, which is 30% more capital investment, as well as additional operating and maintenance costs.
Again, perhaps you should go back and review the stated problem, and check your calculations. You seem not to work the problem assigned by Oren earlier.
"There is tons of literature out there placing solar as cost neutral..."
But of course, there is literature on everything imaginable, but nothing in real life, where peak demand exists in reality, and capital costs exist in reality. Let me know if you can provide real data that demonstrates alternative energy sources are competitive with existing, absent subsidy.
So again, we are left with my 2 questions above, which you've still left unanswered.
Don't feel bad, young man. I was once bright and eager as you, and full of vinegar and straining to run away from base engineering principles, and towards the exciting future.
Base engineering principles are base for a reason, and you can't move away from them. Demand. Supply. Dollars. Real world data. This is where engineering is and must be grounded. You'll learn that someday, perhaps.
No, I didn't dismiss shedding, that poster is as mistaken about that as everything else he's posted.
Power shedding has been a "fantastic tool" and in use for as long as we've been supplying electricity. And we were "shedding" water demand for thousands of years before that, as necessary. There is nothing novel here, even as the poster appears to believe some new vein of gold has been suddenly discovered. We are already doing this, and long have.
There ain't nothin' new under the sun, kids. Utility planning methodologies are a known-known.
Next.
Things we should be doing:
1) Subsidies for methane composter generators at dairy farms (uses manure as feed). These things have a NEGATIVE greenhouse gas impact and although they don't generate a lot of electricity, they have a positive environmental impact.
2) Studies: Can ag waste (biomass) be mixed with coal for coal-fired plants? Would this be energy efficient (maybe when transported mostly on rail lines)? This would allow a portion of the coal-powered generation to be green.
3) Better grid interconnections, so that wind energy could be nationally sold rather than than only regionally sold. If wind power were generated across a larger and more diverse geographic area, the problem of it being intermittent would be substantially reduced.
4) In warmer climates, mandatory fryer oil recycling for biodiesel from all licensed food service establishments, to be added to other diesel mixtures. Ok, libertarians won't like that one, but it would be a good option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions since it would dilute fossile carbon with biomass carbon.
5) Tax incentives to heat one's house with biomass: for example, using wood stoves. Or at very least deregulation of air pollution from heating wood stoves (which seem to be being pushed out into the rural areas due to air quality concerns).
Times Current writes: "That is why all power plants first cycle their frequency from 60-50Hz, and . . . ", then "Frequency adjustments can range from unnoticeable to a brownout, depending on the severity.", and finally "Note, I am not trying to argue that changing the frequency is a good thing, just that it is a routinely employed strategy . . ."
Pure and utter bullcrap. AC frequency is fixed within 0.3 percent. Utilities do not adjust, alter, change, or vary the frequency of electicity for load purposes. To do so —as Sagit mocked earlier— would crash the North American distribution network.
Load shedding is deliberately inducing a shortage of electricity; it is creating a brownout or blackout. It is cutting users off from power access no matter how important their need.
Thanks for clarifying that —in your opinion— degrading US infrastructure to become like the backwaters of Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, or Congo is "a fantastic tool".
Oren wrote earlier, "I consider myself an environmentalist ..."
Some of us clearly understand the connection.
Ahhhhhhh, I missed that blustrous little gem, sub!
Yes, I'm sure all of the equipment manufacturers I spec. will be glad to know that some internet poster has decreed that their products must suddenly be redesigned to operate at something other than the 60 cycles they're spec'd to.
That shouldn't cost much, eh?
New variable frequency drives across the country, everywhere, in every house and farm and garage and plant and school and hospital and office and...?
Just a few gazillion applications, is all.
A mere trifle.
Pshaw... wind power is worth it. We'll sleep better after we fill that money hole, and that's all that counts.
Various facilities I've worked on have service agreements that require them to shed load on, say, a 1-4 hour call. That is, they get the call to shed load within a 1-4 hour time frame. They've previously agreed to do so, so it's cool, if inconvenient at times, and I'm one of the guys that deals wtih the inconvenience in such cases.
Generally, you get warning a day ahead of time, so you know it's coming and plan for it.
All common practice, for many decades.
Calling those procedures 'load shedding' is misleading since load shedding means —pure and simple— a reduction of supply by cutting off or reducing electricity. It is technically true that curtailments and interruptible demand 'shed the load' since they do reduce load; but these are vastly different than interuptions beyond the consumers' control. The term 'load shedding' normally refers to load reduction beyond curtailments and controlled interruptions.
That's not a feature, that's a bug.
Nuclear power is not "renewable". Fission reactors work by releasing the fossil energy of uranium or thorium. "Breeder" reactors and fuel reprocessing are just ways to capture more of that resource. Eventually, all that is left is stable fission products.
"Fusion" power would also be, nominally, non-renewable, since it would use up hydrogen that isn't replaced. However, solar power (and therefore also wind, tide, and hydroelectric power) are also non-renewable.
One of the best ideas I'd seen (that made me think "that's so obvious, why didn't I think of it?") is to put the energy load where the wind is. I think Google built a server farm right under a wind farm.
Don't most food services already recycle their oil? I know that there is a market for used oil, and their local sewer utility will not let them get away with dumping it down the sewer more than once.
The basic issue though is that wind power isn't "always on" nor can it just be turned on in order to generate power. So if your wind power is sold locally, you have to have as much standby power generation capability as you need even without the wind.
However, if you have wind power plants over a very large area (say around the US in various parts), and if the grids are well interconnected, then you need MUCH less standby power. Basically, if the wind is not blowing in Northeast Oregon but it is blowing in South Dakota, then one is still OK if the grid interconnections are good enough. Otherwise, you have to fire up the coal plants......
Does this make more sense?
Locally, wind power sucks. Nationally, it actually has a lot of promise, but to make it work, we need more infrastructure to deal with the fact that the wind isn't always blowing, and that sometimes there are storms severe enough to mandate shutting down the power plants.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.