YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Astronuc]

Texas Surplus in Wind Energy - too much of good thing, ain't so good.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-drowning-in-wind-energy/

Similar problem in Illinois - too much wind.

Meanwhile, NY and NE could benefit from low cost energy - but someone needs to transmit between seller and purchaser - at a reasonable rate.

We have two problems - over supply in some areas and maldistribution between producers and consumers.

 

[jack action]

Texas Surplus in Wind Energy - too much of good thing, ain't so good.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a22228/texas-is-drowning-in-wind-energy/

I don't understand what the problem is. We run only on hydro-electricity here (Québec) and they actually let the water pass by when electricity demand is low or even cut-off completely a turbine and nobody says «OMG, we wasted liquid electricity!» and the prices surely don't drop!

If I have wind turbines to power my house during windy days, such that I use my generator only when it's not, will I complain because the wind turbines produce more energy than I actually use during the windy days? I will just cut one off and not think twice about. I'll even gain in durability because an unused wind turbine wear less. Or I might even begin working more on windy days and be on vacation when it's not windy.

If a power generator makes more power than expected, I don't complain, I make new plans for the future.

 

[gmax137]

I don't understand what the problem is

a few things about the grid:
1. supply must match demand, in real time. If not, voltage gets out of whack and very bad things can happen
2. the grid operator doesn't control demand (usually)
3. the grid operator doesn't control the price they pay for power.

None of these are of concern if you're running your own windmill to supply your own loads.

 

[jack action]

a few things about the grid:
1. supply must match demand, in real time. If not, voltage gets out of whack and very bad things can happen
2. the grid operator doesn't control demand (usually)
3. the grid operator doesn't control the price they pay for power.

None of these are of concern if you're running your own windmill to supply your own loads.

Yes, but how is controlling supply a problem?

Like I said, around here we don't see a difference in price when supply is high (or demand is low). On the contrary, there are talks about problems when demand is high (or supply is low), which - for us - is in the winter time when people heat their homes. There is a «problem» in the summer time where we are trying to sell our potential, unused, energy production to the south where it is needed for air conditioning. But it is not really a problem, it is more of a «how can we maximize the potential of our installations» kind of situation. There is a potential to reduce the cost of the installations, but there are no problems if it doesn't happen.

 

[mfb]

Yes, but how is controlling supply a problem?

Power plants cannot switch on/off too fast, switching thermal power plants too often (=heat cycles) is bad for the material, and the cost distribution gets skewed with most regulations. If Texas has "too much" wind, electricity prices can become negative - the wind power plant operators pay to sell their electricity - because they get subsidies if they sell it. All that makes conventional power plants less attractive - but you still need them as the wind does not blow every time.

 

[anorlunda]

Similar problem in Illinois - too much wind.

Meanwhile, NY and NE could benefit from low cost energy - but someone needs to transmit between seller and purchaser - at a reasonable rate.
llin
We have two problems - over supply in some areas and maldistribution between producers and consumers.

Granted that power transmission is more difficult to arrange than say transport of a commodity like wheat. But that is not the issue here. IMO this is a case of plain vanilla competition.

Hydro Quebec is offering James Bay renewable power to the Northeast states in a much more attractive package than the Illinois wind providers. The Canadians pay all the cost of transporting the power to the borders of the NE states. They also offer multiple transmission paths that offer the benefit of additional reliability which is critically important. They also offer the possibility of greatly expanding James Bay capacity in the future to accommodate future demand growth.

IMO some providers of renewable power feel that they are entitled to get rich quick because they are green. When that doesn't happen they whine and demand that government should force others to make them rich. If they were really interested in competing to supply wind power to the NE, they should fight to build their wind generators offshore along Long Island, Nantucket, and Maine rather than Illinois. Alternatively, they could apply the surplus power to help hold energy costs down in Illinois which should eventually make Illinois attract more businesses and population.

I say thank God that ordinary competition still applies to situations like this. Competition and level playing fields for all competitors, not energy policy, has the best hope of providing us the best energy future.

 

[mheslep]

The oversupply of wind in Texas is due to the federal subsidy for wind, at $25/MWh, not a lack of transmission to other parts of the country. Wind is intermittent on an hourly basis of course but also seasonally. Every year in Texas and in the Midwest for instance, wind generation slows dramatically in August or September, sometimes by more than half.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7geNjmDdecXQTB0RzMwVWQwUFU/preview
The output of the US nuclear fleet does not fall by half for a month.

Wind can cause dispatchable thermal electric power to be run less, but it can never replace the thermal fleet, and it is this that makes wind impractical beyond 15-25% of total production. See Germany, which in the last 14 years has built some 80 GW of wind and solar at great cost (against a ~60 GW avg load), but nonetheless has more gas plus coal electric capacity than when it started, a poor result. In the same length of time ('80 - '94), France went from majority fossil fuel power to 5% fossil by installing nuclear power.

 

[mheslep]

None of these are of concern if you're running your own windmill to supply your own loads.

But there is no such person or country that does or can rely only on wind. Even personal wind turbine owners need the grid.

 

[jack action]

If Texas has "too much" wind, electricity prices can become negative - the wind power plant operators pay to sell their electricity - because they get subsidies if they sell it.

The oversupply of wind in Texas is due to the federal subsidy for wind, at $25/MWh

So the problem is bureaucratic, not technical.

Isn't it fun when politics dictates instead of common sense?

 

[jlefevre76]

So the problem is bureaucratic, not technical.

Isn't it fun when politics dictates instead of common sense?

Well, it's political, but also technical. When demand in the grid is low and supply is high, that energy goes to waste as mentioned. When demand is high and supply is low, especially if supply is too low, then cities that are being supplied can experience power black outs (where power cuts out for long periods of time) or, "brown" outs (where the power is cuts out for short periods of time).

Energy storage projects fix this problem, though increasing the cost of electricity. However, it's going to be a technical necessity in the future. A nice, brief overview of different storage technologies that can be used in the grid is on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
I think as solar comes on board especially, we are going to see a lot of facilities dedicated entirely to energy storage come onboard.

 

[russ_watters]

So the problem is bureaucratic, not technical.

Isn't it fun when politics dictates instead of common sense?

To me, the problem is economic. Any power plant's economics are partly driven by load factor and the problem of over-supply is basically the same as low load factor: you are paying for kWh you can't produce/sell. It is worse for non-fuel plants since they cost the same whether they are producing electricity or not.

 

[mheslep]

...

Energy storage projects fix this problem,

So far, there are no examples or energy storage projects with the required depth (multiple days at least) and scale (half a GW or more), not anywhere.

...though increasing the cost of electricity. However, it's going to be a technical necessity in the future. A nice, brief overview of different storage technologies that can be used in the grid is on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
I think as solar comes on board especially, we are going to see a lot of facilities dedicated entirely to energy storage come onboard.

Energy storage is not a necessity now (nuclear, fossil, hydro, geothermal), so storage need not be required in the future unless intermittent energy sources are chosen for some reason.

 

[jartsa]

Here's my solution to the energy storage problem:

1: Cold storerooms freeze themselves to extra cool temperature when there's extra electricity available. This saves some energy at other times.

2: Power plants freeze their cooling water when there's extra electricity available. This allows the plants to generate some more energy at other times.

 

[mfb]

How much does that cost, what is the efficiency, and how much electricity can be stored that way? How large is the tolerable temperature range in storerooms?

 

[jartsa]

How much does that cost, what is the efficiency, and how much electricity can be stored that way? How large is the tolerable temperature range in storerooms?

I have no idea about all these details

 

[mfb]

To be a solution all those things have to work.

The efficiency of freezing water is bad, and it is expensive. Storerooms don't need a large share of the overall electricity so they cannot store much.

 

[anorlunda]

All this talk about energy storage ignores the very sound, effective and simple technique of time shifting of load. To more closely balance peak and off-peak loads, you need only to shift some load from the peak time to off peak time. That accomplishes the same thing as generating at peak and storing energy at off peak.

My favorite example of this is mining; especially in the US west. Mining is a very big portion of the grid load; in some regions, 20% or more. It is often possible for the mine to do a year's worth of digging and crushing in only 3 months. Therefore, the days and hours of those big mining loads can be scheduled at almost any time year when the grid is best able to provide the energy at the least cost. Such scheduling flexibility has been used for many decades.

Now let me be provocative, and see what happens:

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

Before putting panels on the roof, how about first cutting housing space to 150 $ft^2$ per person? Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

There is no energy crisis, but rather an affluence crisis multiplied by a population crisis.

 

[mheslep]

How is that post different from, 'PF Guidelines Off, Sourceless Provocation On: All you current generation people (and there's far too many of you) need to use much less stuff, switch to hunter gatherer, and everything would be fine. Anyone that disagrees with me is in denial of a future outcome I know to be certain.' ?

 

[anorlunda]

How is that post different from, 'PF Guidelines Off, Sourceless Provocation On: All you current generation people (and there's far too many of you) need to use much less stuff, switch to hunter gatherer, and everything would be fine. Anyone that disagrees with me is in denial of a future outcome I know to be certain.' ?

I just reviewed the PF guidelines. I don't see a violation. There is no mainstream science in this thread. The whole topic is asking for speculation. But if you think my post #1337 violates PF guidelines, then you should report it.

But don't you agree that this whole so-called energy crisis is not an engineering problem, but rather a social problem?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's my solution to the energy storage problem:

1: Cold storerooms freeze themselves to extra cool temperature when there's extra electricity available. This saves some energy at other times.

2: Power plants freeze their cooling water when there's extra electricity available. This allows the plants to generate some more energy at other times.

How much does that cost, what is the efficiency, and how much electricity can be stored that way? How large is the tolerable temperature range in storerooms?

I have no idea about all these details

Energy storage through cooling is a potentially viable source of stored energy in some applications, but I've never heard of it being used as proposed here. I don't think it would be viable here because the cooling water isn't normally frozen (or even just made very cold) during the normal course of work and it isn't done via mechanical cooling anyway - not even with fans, as most large cooling towers are natural draft. So there is nothing to save.

Where it works is in large building or campus chiller plants where you have to do mechanical cooling (with a refrigerated chiller) either way. So if you can use off-peak power to make the "cold" (sometimes ice, sometimes just a gigantic tank of cold water) you can save money without saving energy.

 

[russ_watters]

All this talk about energy storage ignores the very sound, effective and simple technique of time shifting of load. To more closely balance peak and off-peak loads, you need only to shift some load from the peak time to off peak time. That accomplishes the same thing as generating at peak and storing energy at off peak.

Well, yes -- though in many cases they are actually the same thing just on the user side vs the utility side. Charging your Tesla at work during the day vs at home at night is both energy storage and load shifting. Same with ice storage (as is currently used).

My father has been working in energy cost consulting for a while and manipulating companies' load profiles is part of that. Some is just a bit of a game with no real-world impact (other than the money) such as shutting down a piece of equipment for a few minutes if you are reaching a new peak. But others have real-world impact, such as starting an induction furnace before 8:00 AM so that the morning warm-up uses off-peak power and charging forklift batteries at night.

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

Before putting panels on the roof, how about first cutting housing space to 150 $ft^2$ per person? Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

There is no energy crisis, but rather an affluence crisis multiplied by a population crisis.

Most of that is an ok political opinion, (and from a technical perspective would work), but it would be very difficult to square with how a free society is supposed to work. However, I don't think it is necessarily a realistic prediction that future generations will necessarily face such radical choices. Humans have, for practical purposes, limitless energy available, so it doesn't seem realistic to me that such choices will be necessary for the foreseeable future.

In either case, mhslep is right insofar as this isn't a place for that political/philosophical discussion. So let's let that go. Also, just to clarify:

There is no mainstream science in this thread. The whole topic is asking for speculation.

Speculation within the bounds of mainstream science. Moderators have in fact deleted a lot of out-of-the-mainstream speculation in this thread, such as perpetual motion machines.

But don't you agree that this whole so-called energy crisis is not an engineering problem, but rather a social problem?

Whether one agrees with that or not (I disagree), the premise of the thread - as per its location - is to tackle it from an engineering perspective. So let's drop that line of discussion.

 

[mheslep]

The Ice Bear has been around for some years now. Stores enough energy for typical Haldeman day heat load.
https://www.ice-energy.com/#icebear

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...while-optimizing-the-power-grid/#2412c79946d7

Demand shift schemes have been around for decades. The goto used to be a diesel genset attached to a commercial building to shave off utility http://www.stem.com/resources/learning/ These schemes work at the margin but they don't come close to moving the US peak load off of 5 to 7pm on a daily basis, much less seasonal demand peaks lasting months.

http://www.stem.com/resources/learning/

 

[jack action]

Before putting panels on the roof, how about first cutting housing space to 150 ft2ft2ft^2 per person? Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

But don't you agree that this whole so-called energy crisis is not an engineering problem, but rather a social problem?

I'm going to restrain myself from commenting as it appears it is not welcomed, but I «liked» your posts.

 

[anorlunda]

I'm going to restrain myself from commenting as it appears it is not welcome, but I «liked» your posts.

Thanks, but this is Russ's thread so we have to let him call the shots.

 

[billy_joule]

All this talk about energy storage ignores the very sound, effective and simple technique of time shifting of load. To more closely balance peak and off-peak loads, you need only to shift some load from the peak time to off peak time. That accomplishes the same thing as generating at peak and storing energy at off peak.

Now let me be provocative, and see what happens:

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

My residential power company charges the half hourly, wholesale spot price plus some mark up and fixed costs, so I'm at the whim of the price fluctuations of the market.
I check the spot price regularly and adjust my consumption to suit.

It's one way to incentivise load shifting to consumers.
(I hope this isn't straying too far from the intended discussion)

 

[OmCheeto]

Thanks, but this is Russ's thread so we have to let him call the shots.

hmmm... Let's see if I can get away with it.

There is no engineering reason why many loads can't be time shifted to shave the peaks and fill the valleys in grid load. But there are social reasons. US residents are very unwilling to even consider adapting their life styles to conserve.

Before putting panels on the roof, how about [1]first cutting housing space to 150 ft^2 per person? [2]Instead of buying an EV, how about moving to within walking distance of work and stores, eliminating both personal vehicles and public transportation? Instead of heating and cooling, how about adopting a nomadic life style where the population migrates seasonally to follow moderate temperatures and availability of fresh water? Those are the kinds of radical choices facing future generations. [3]Current generations say, "That's ridiculous."

There is no energy crisis, but rather an affluence crisis multiplied by a population crisis.

[bracketed numbering mine, for ease of reference]

The only thing I disagree with here is the "nomidic lifestyle". That might work for retired people, but few others than perhaps migrant farm workers.

Most of that is an ok political opinion, (and from a technical perspective would work), but it would be very difficult to square with how a free society is supposed to work. However, I don't think it is necessarily a realistic prediction that future generations will necessarily face such radical choices. Humans have, for practical purposes, limitless energy available, so it doesn't seem realistic to me that such choices will be necessary for the foreseeable future.

In either case, mhslep is right insofar as this isn't a place for that political/philosophical discussion. So let's let that go. Also, just to clarify:

Interestingly, a couple of things that anorlunda proposed are already happening.

[1] Personal housing in the 150 ft² range is already popping up around here. Though, current laws prohibit them in what many would see as ideal spots: In their parent's back yards!
Neighbor complains, city boots young couple out of their illegal tiny house
You made 'em. You deal with 'em!

[2] Cars... Though it may not be apparent, younger [I'm assuming urban] generations are already shedding them.
Like Millennials, More Older Americans Steering Away From Driving
For the sake of bandwidth, I re-digitized the graph they displayed:

I first became aware of this trend about a year ago, when one of my younger Facebook friends started a thread about "What people buy online".
I was surprised, and couldn't figure out why, some of them were buying laundry detergent.
It took me a few minutes, but then I realized, that purchasing things in bulk, to get the best price, would be quite problematic, if you didn't have some way convenient, aka car, to get them home.

[3] Current generations? I think it's the older generations that are having a problem adapting to the changes. Most of my under 35 carless friends will rent one, for road trips.

 

[anorlunda]

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/20160910_095031-1030x579.jpg

Yesterday, I was privileged to visit Mabry Mill on The Blue Ridge Parkway. The park service restored the mill so that water flows through the races and the overshot wheel still turns. Inside, one can see the mechanisms of the grist mill and saw mill applications. As I watched, I noticed that the speed of the wheel was highly uneven. It even stopped for a few seconds every once in a while.

Then it occurred to me that this was a marvelous example of an application of energy consumption well adapted to the means of energy production. At the end of the day, even if the wheel's power was intermittent, the grain got milled and the planks got sawed.

We recently discussed time shifting of loads, as an alternative to energy storage. But Mabry Mills can remind us that much more could be done to adapt the ways we consume energy to match the properties of the methods of energy production. Not all applications require the same voltages, capacities, reliability or continuity as the electric power system we grew up with.

If we want to continue advancing the percent of energy produced by wind and solar, we should apply more of our imaginations into thinking of energy consumption methods that best match the strengths of those means. That might be more productive than trying to force the wind and solar to duplicate the properties of fossil fuel production.

 

[jim hardy]

If we want to continue advancing the percent of energy produced by wind and solar, we should apply more of our imaginations into thinking of energy consumption methods that best match the strengths of those means. That might be more productive than trying to force the wind and solar to duplicate the properties of fossil fuel production.

We are conditioned for generations now to the instant gratification our "permissive cornucopia" economy makes possible.
Had Eisenhower built passenger railroads instead of interstates would we be a more patient and disciplined people, with timetable-based living habits ?

Hot water and refrigeration are the (edit see post1349) MY two biggest residential eaters of energy.
I could adapt easily to bathing at end of day when a solar water heater has built up inventory instead of a morning shower.
I grew up in Miami when only rich people had air conditioners. There were cowpastures between downtown and the airport. I daresay were it not for cheap electricity and airconditioning Florida would still be sparsely populated .

It's going to be a tough sell.

old jim

 

[mheslep]

...
Hot water and refrigeration are the two biggest residential eaters of energy.

Well maybe in FL? Space heat is #1 in the US Jim. Has been since we were in caves. Twenty years ago space heat was bigger than everything else combined in the home. Better insulation and more efficient furnaces have dropped it's share, but it's still largest.
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/

 

[mheslep]

Then it occurred to me that this was a marvelous example of an application of energy consumption well adapted to the means of energy production. At the end of the day, even if the wheel's power was intermittent, the grain got milled and the planks got sawed.

Problem is, the operation is inevitably less efficient than one that runs continuously or at least on demand. That becomes a real problem if the 'mill' is a multi billion dollar plant somewhere and shutting it down costs, I dunno, $10K a minute. The penalty may not be just economic either but environmental, in that instead of demand being met by one 'mill' on a stream, along with transportation access, several mills with access are required. Then come the protesters reciting save-our-stream chants.