YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[mfb]

That's what kwh's are worth.

That is what you have to pay to get reliable power generation. Paying more for less reliable power costs a lot of money.

 

[johnbbahm]

I'm not talking about selling power back either at this point. Yes I understand one can save money under the *current* residential utility pricing system, by better home energy efficiency or by producing your own via PV.

Do you understand that, despite the current bill pricing, producing one more kWh actually costs the utility only a couple cents? That is, from the average home they need to collect that average bill of $100 to $120 a month to keep the grid going, regardless of how much PV sits on the roof. Install enough PV across the country, and that effective PV subsidy will have to go away.

In California, I've read that for every GW of new rooftop solar installed, the utilities lose $70 million a year in billings that they have to collect from somewhere (or someone) else.

I understand the negative economics caused from net metering, and why the utilities are pushing back.
Net metering is effectively ordering a retailer (the utility) to buy the product they sell, at the same price they sell it for.
It is an untenable position.
In my area, the grid is maintained by a separate company, than the electrical provider, and the grid costs show up as a line
item called "TDU Delivery Charges ACTUAL PERIOD 1199 kWh @ $0.038791" billed by the Kwh for the grid,
there is also a fixed meter charge of $5.47.
I strongly suspect, as more people go to solar, they will change how this is billed to a fixed connection fee.
I think it is already happening in some states.
Under the current structure, I am billed by usage, If my usage decreases, my bill decreases by the amount I pay
for each Kwh.

 

[johnbbahm]

You still miss the point. The electricity grid won't work like today if everyone installs rooftop solar. Someone has to pay for it, and someone has to balance the load - which also needs money someone has to pay.

You are correct, the current billing method (by usage) will not be sustainable with a high number of solar users.
I suspect the grid operators already know the average cost per home for grid attachment.
The push back by utilities has been well documented, and while unpopular, is justified.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/utilities-push-back-against-solar

 

[mfb]

I strongly suspect, as more people go to solar, they will change how this is billed to a fixed connection fee.

That, or something else. Whatever they change to, it will reduce the cost savings you get from rooftop solar.

 

[johnbbahm]

That, or something else. Whatever they change to, it will reduce the cost savings you get from rooftop solar.

It could go ether way, it depends on where you start!
If Nevada's new charge of $38.51 is the fixed cost, That is less than I pay for my grid usage most months.

 

[mfb]

Then Nevada or companies there would have to magically reduce their grid operating costs due to an increase in rooftop solar (otherwise the causal connection is not there). That won't happen.

 

[russ_watters]

Then Nevada or companies there would have to magically reduce their grid operating costs due to an increase in rooftop solar (otherwise the causal connection is not there). That won't happen.

While I agree that market economics dictates such changes as you and others describe, the hidden assumption here that market economics apply is tenuous at best.

Since utilities are government regulated monopolies and solar power has substantial political football value, there are broad possibilities about how to deal with the rise of solar. All that is really required is that the utility companies not go bankrupt.

Personally, the most likely scenario to me is that solar flattens out at 2 or 3% and none of the problems with managing it ever materialize. Why? Because there is only so much money available for political footballs and the absurd subsidies for solar are already starting to dry-up.

 

[johnbbahm]

Then Nevada or companies there would have to magically reduce their grid operating costs due to an increase in rooftop solar (otherwise the causal connection is not there). That won't happen.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/utilities-push-back-against-solar
I am thinking the earlier number $12.75 a month was way too low,
While I am sure the $38.51, number is a result of a compromise with the public utility commission,
I cannot see the PUC, if they were raising the price, to not increase it to the cost of goods sold of the service,
so the utility does not loose money with each new connection.

 

[mheslep]

Personally, the most likely scenario to me is that solar flattens out at 2 or 3% and none of the problems with managing it ever materialize. Why? Because there is only so much money available for political footballs and the absurd subsidies for solar are already starting to dry-up.

Agreed, solar should flatten out at a couple percent if some restraint were applied to the money and mandates thrown at it. However, Germany is already 8% solar over the year (2015), with residential electricity users suffering a tripling of rates over the last 20 years, the 2nd highest in Europe. California washttp://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html in-state generation (2014). (Edit: CA solar share rose tohttp://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electric_generation_capacity.html )

 

[mfb]

@russ_watters, @johnbbahm: It does not really matter who exactly pays it at the end. Society in total does. If you consider the effort that has to be put in in total, rooftop solar does not reduce the effort that is necessary to operate the grid. It is more likely to increase it.

 

[jim hardy]

Meanwhile back at the ranch
from American Wind Energy Association

http://www.aweablog.org/american-innovation-at-work-u-s-worlds-top-wind-energy-producer/
in world

The U.S. led the world in wind energy production in 2015.

Greg Alvarez
March 2, 2016
http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=8463 created more electricity from wind than any other country in 2015, according to new data released by the Global Wind Energy Council and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

American ingenuity and strong wind resources have helped make U.S. turbines the most productive in the world, producing over 190 million megawatt-hours of electricity in 2015. That’s significantly more than runners-up China, Germany and Spain. Although China has more than two times the installed wind power capacity as the U.S., production-based policies and top notch wind reserves allowed American turbines to generate more energy.

The new data also included some impressive milestones. Iowa became the first state to crack 30 percent wind-generated electricity, and 12 states now generate at least 10 percent of their electricity with wind. New to that list is Texas, the nation’s largest electricity user.

That's a very pro-wind site...
but they link to their data source. www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly

I am surprised. Guess I'm just a fossil mentality.
Power System engineers, hold on to your hats. Grid is going to get a lot more chaotic. Coming decades will be a good time to be versed in control system theory, too .

old jim

 

[rootone]

Here is cause for optimism for a change.
http://www.sciencealert.com/portugal-just-ran-for-4-straight-days-entirely-on-renewable-energy

 

[jim hardy]

Here is cause for optimism for a change.
http://www.sciencealert.com/portugal-just-ran-for-4-straight-days-entirely-on-renewable-energy

That is a pleasant bit of news. Digging coal is backbreaking work. It'll be a great day when we only need enough of it to power our steam toys and hobbyist blacksmith forges .
http://www.livesteam.net/

Don't scrap your steam power plants just yet though, air conditioning season is just around the corner.

 

[rootone]

An interesting point that.
Portugal happens to be gifted with a variety of renewable energy sources.
As you say though it has arid climate in summer and air conditioning is necessary for a comfortable life.
Could there be a way to store the excess natural energy in autumn through to spring, release in summer to cool living spaces down . ?

 

[OmCheeto]

An interesting point that.
Portugal happens to be gifted with a variety of renewable energy sources.
As you say though it has arid climate in summer and air conditioning is necessary for a comfortable life.
Could there be a way to store the excess natural energy in autumn through to spring, release in summer to cool living spaces down . ?

I can't find any statistics on how many people in Portugal have air conditioning, but I'm guessing it's not too common.

Average highs and lows for Memphis TN, and Lisbon Portugal​

Lisbon's summer high temps are the same as here. I would imagine that they do the same thing I do in the summer during hot weather: close up the house during the day, and open it up at night.

Now Jim on the other hand. Good grief! I would die without A/C, in the Memphis area.
Our summertime lows average in the 50's, so it's even better than Lisbon, in that respect.

Here's an interesting statistic:

U.S. households use more energy for A/C than the rest of the world combined. ...
EMILY BADGER Aug 12, 2013
87 percent of us have either central air or window units​

In the comments section, someone said that 5000 people in Paris died in a heatwave, 13 years ago.
So I checked wiki, and they claim in 2003, 70,000 people in Europe were killed by the hottest heat wave since at least 1540.

----------
But getting back to the topic...
Portugal is one of those very lucky countries with just about everything going for it.
Moderate climate, with abundant renewable energy resources.

Renewable energy in Portugal [wiki]
In 2014, 63% of Portugal's electricity needs were supplied by renewable sources.​

Yay Portugal!

 

[mfb]

Examples like Portugal and Iceland exist, but one has to remember that this does not work everywhere. It's like claiming access to clean water should not be an issue if you have a clean spring directly next to your house. Sure, you have great water access, but many others do not.

The United States created more electricity from wind than any other country in 2015

Technically correct. But if you compare it to other numbers...
US: 190 million MWh of wind electricity in 2015 (~600 kWh/person, 5% of total electricity production)
Germany: 85 million MWh (~1000 kWh/person, 13% of total electricity production)

 

[mheslep]

Here is cause for optimism for a change.
http://www.sciencealert.com/portugal-just-ran-for-4-straight-days-entirely-on-renewable-energy

Singing the praises of the latest output of "renewable" sourced electricity is quite popular in the green press. And quite the con. If I had my way I have such claims thrown in the same bin as perpetual motion machines that cite only energy output; that is, telling half the story to gather buzz.

It's rare that the long term output of intermittent solar or wind is reported, but "renewables", which in the overwhelming majority of cases is dominated by century old technology og hydroelectric and biomass generation. There are dozens of countries where hydro is over half of electric generation. Norway 99%. Canada 70%
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.HYRO.ZS

Portugal has also built some wind to supplement it's hydro which of a sudden bumps its total renewable output, making some news. When one has some elctric grid connects to dispatchable fossil fuel plants in Spain from which to draw power when the wind doesn't blow (not at all, for days at a time), then quite a bit of wind is enabled, all while permanently locking in fossil fuel power elsewhere. At such a circumstance though there really is no "Portugal" electric grid but an eastern Med grid, with a much lower share of wind over the whole.

The most incidious aspect of citing renewable figures made fat by hydro (or biomass) is of course that much of the hydro resource has long ago been tapped. That which is left likely should not be exploited. So, when these countries (Congo, Nepal, Phillipines) go to expand their capacity the next step overwhelmingly is coal, though there may well be a World Bank funded tinker toy of a solar farm in the store window. The result is, again:

https://www.physicsforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.squarespace.com%2Fstatic%2F56ec643d22482eaae2bb99c2%2Ft%2F5728d8a71bbee0a94c5ec3fa%2F1462294702830%2F%3Fformat%3D500w&hash=19eff3235d0b7f34a3b331d5393c5738

 

[jim hardy]

Protugal enjoys mild climate small population and lots of hydro.
Thanks OM for that comparison. Memphis is in the Mississippi River Basin and quite humid, really uncomfortable in the summertime.

So it's not surprising that on some mild Spring days they are able to make ends meet without steam.
On mild nights in Florida two nukes used to carry our share of the state. If one trips, uh-oh.

http://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/portugal
Portugal
Portugal statistics
Area:
92,200 sq km
Population:
10,460,000
Installed hydropower capacity:
4,455 MW + 1,343 MW pumped storage (2014)
Hydropower generation:
16.16 TWh (2014)

http://mecometer.com/whats/portugal/electricity-installed-generating-capacity/
The Electricity - installed generating capacity of Portugal is 18.9 ( millions of kW) with a global rank of 36.

That's 1.81kw per person, 24% of it hydro
US is what, 1000 gw for 321 million ( http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population/)
= 3.1 kw/person ?
~75 gw of that is hydro, 7.5% . per http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/ click on the graph to see individual sources.
Interesting page here with maps,
http://energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-resource-assessment-and-characterization
looks like there's potential to double our hydro. But it's dependent on rainfall, see
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2650

For some scale , when i visited Niagara around 1970 the US side was about 2.2gw, same as the steam plant i worked in with two nuke and two fossil units.

I don't think 100% renewable is practical
but every kwh from it is a pound of coal somebody didn't have to dig out of the ground. Ever watch movie "October Sky" ?

old jim

 

[OmCheeto]

...
I don't think 100% renewable is practical

I'm not sure who's idea that was.

but every kwh from it is a pound of coal somebody didn't have to dig out of the ground.

and oil too.

Ever watch movie "October Sky" ?

Never heard of it.
But just found it.
I'll let you know tomorrow, what I thought of it.

 

[jim hardy]

But just found it.

I once toured a deep shaft coal mine 400 feet under a power plant in Southern Illinois. Very humbling experience.
That scene in the movie i'll guarantee was filmed in a mine. That surreal machine with all the augers immediately fills the area with such dense black dust you can't see an inch, can't breathe, and it permeates your clothes right down to the skin.
I don't know how they shot the scene.
Underground coal miners have my respect and awe for the work they do and the conditions in which they do it.

old jim

PS If you ever get invited to tour a coal mine don't wear a suit.

 

[OmCheeto]

10 stars. Awesome movie.

PS If you ever get invited to tour a coal mine don't wear a suit.

I'll just decline the invitation. That looked horrific.
I see median salary is $21/hour. [ref]
I think starting salaries should be about $100/hour.

 

[mheslep]

...looks like there's potential to double our hydro.

Then, only 60% more to go, to retire all the US fossil combustion plants (about 650 GW of coal and gas).

 

[anorlunda]

http://energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-resource-assessment-and-characterization
looks like there's potential to double our hydro. But it's dependent on rainfall, see

They ignore Canadian hydro which has enormous potential and which they are very willing to sell to the USA. In the US Northeast, offers by the Canadians have sounded very attractive compared to most in-country renewable proposals.

Arguing against that is the risk (however small) that Canada gets mad at the USA and cuts off the power. Personally, I think it would be more likely that Kansas gets mad at Massachusetts; probably over some bathroom law or something like that. Seriously though, politics and energy are inseparable. It is unrealistic to sit around debating it solely on the technical merits.

 

[jack action]

It is so funny for a Quebecer to read this stuff about renewable energy being the impossible dream.

In Quebec, we are 8 300 000 people on a 1 542 056 km² of land (compare that to Portugal). As of 2014, we have access to 46 314 MW of electricity generation, which 96-99% (not sure what «other suppliers» are) are from renewable sources (hydro, wind, biomass, biogas cogeneration), the rest being produced by gas-fired turbines and diesel, mostly for convenience. 165 TWh per year are reserved for our grid at low cost (by law) and we sell the excess to others inside and outside the province. We may not use A/C as much as in the south, but we do need to heat our homes in the winter.

In 2012, we shut down the only nuclear plant we had.

We are currently adding 1 550 MW to produce 8 TWh of electricity.

Any renewable source that is not hydro, we exploit it - basically - just for fun.

We are blessed.

 

[anorlunda]

It is so funny for a Quebecer to read this stuff about renewable energy being the impossible dream.

Thanks for reminding us. You are absolutely right.

Norway would be the one country that could beat Quebec on hydro capacity, but those "blue-eyed arabs of the north" also swim in huge oil and gas resources. They can afford tricks like exempting EV cars from the $100,000 excise tax per new car thus making Teslas nearly free, and making themselves appear even greener.

The fact that resources are far from evenly divided between nations and regions, is often neglected in public debates. Many debaters project their personal circumstances to the whole world, e.g. "if everybody did rooftop solar like me ..." "everybody needs AC..." "I did xxx, why can't everyone do that too?..." Projection is only human, but it limits the value of public debate as opposed to scholarly debate.

 

[OmCheeto]

...Seriously though, politics and energy are inseparable. It is unrealistic to sit around debating it solely on the technical merits.

There's also the "psychology" factor. Which I consider the ground/individual, and most important level.
IMHO, people are/'would be' much more willing to invest in "renewables", if there's an "I'm winning by doing this!" factor.

 

[mheslep]

It is so funny for a Quebecer to read this stuff about renewable energy being the impossible dream.

In Quebec, we are 8 300 000 people on a 1 542 056 km² of land (compare that to Portugal). As of 2014, we have access to 46 314 MW of electricity generation, which 96-99% (not sure what «other suppliers» are) are from renewable sources (hydro, wind, biomass, biogas cogeneration), the rest being produced by gas-fired turbines and diesel, mostly for convenience. 165 TWh per year are reserved for our grid at low cost (by law) and we sell the excess to others inside and outside the province. We may not use A/C as much as in the south, but we do need to heat our homes in the winter.

In 2012, we shut down the only nuclear plant we had.

We are currently adding 1 550 MW to produce 8 TWh of electricity.

Any renewable source that is not hydro, we exploit it - basically - just for fun.

We are blessed.

Not "renewable", but solar and wind power are the improbable dream for running an entire power grid, so too any other kind of highly variable energy source.

 

[NascentOxygen]

Thread reopened on notice.

 

[anorlunda]

http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-completes-a-year-of-full-operation/
This is a very interesting blog post about a failed renewable energy demonstration project in the Canary Islands. The post doesn't teach us anything about wind or energy storage that we don't already know. What it does do is to illustrate what happens when enthusiastic renewable supporters and politicians override sound engineering.

Here is the first paragraph from the post:

At the end of June the Gorona del Viento (GdV) plant completed its first year of full operation, during which it supplied 34.6% of El Hierro’s electricity demand with renewable electricity at a cost probably exceeding €1.00/kWh and lowered the island’s CO2 emissions by approximately 12,000 tons at a cost of around €1,000/ton. This post summarizes these unexpectedly poor results, discusses the reasons for them and concludes that GdV, which was intended to show the world how fossil fuel generation can readily be replaced with intermittent renewables, can already be classified as a “failed project”. GdV’s performance further suggests that replacing fossil fuels with intermittent renewables elsewhere in the world could be a lot more difficult than the proponents of renewable energy are prepared to admit.

To be clear, I am a wind/solar proponent. I oppose only exaggerated claims, hyperbole, and unfair subsidies, and most of all unsound engineering. I'm posting this item in this thread because the very premise of this thread (see the OP) is to hear about coherent national energy plans that are so simple that they can be described in a post on an Internet public forum. Poppycock.

I think making coherent and comprehensive plans takes lots of tedious engineering, and the details of such plans are voluminous and complex. To my knowledge, the most recent attempt to make such a plan was in 2001. It is 170 pages long. http://wtrg.com/EnergyReport/National-Energy-Policy.pdf and even that plan was not written by engineers.

The blog post makes very entertaining reading, as do the comments. I compare it with the written analyses of what went wrong with the space shuttle Challenger. The author explains his reasoning clearly step by step, and shows historical data from the project to back up his conclusions. Perhaps most interesting is that the project leaders are still holding press conferences declaring this project to be a total success exceeding expectations, and the the local government council knows too little about the engineering to know the difference between success and failure.

Again from the blog post:

The answer is simple. Intermittent renewable energy is not going to replace dispatchable fossil fuel generation without adequate energy storage backup, and since the amount of energy storage needed is almost always prohibitive it follows that an energy future based entirely on intermittent renewables is not a realistic prospect. As discussed at length in previous posts the only way to integrate significant amounts of intermittent renewable energy with the grid is by maintaining enough dispatchable capacity to cover demand when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. GdV has in fact already effectively defaulted into this operating mode.

I'm more optimistic than he about the cost trends in utility-level energy storage. But that remains unproven.

 

[mheslep]

Digging into the past:

Once all this [El Hierro] is set up this will be among the first 100% renewably-powered places on the planet (there are a few others already...).

Yes there are many clean power grids from hydroelectricity and nuclear. But from variable wind and solar, there were none then, none now, none remotely close. After Germany has installed some 80 GW nameplate of wind and solar at enormous cost, it today has about the same amount of coal+gas electric capacity as it had 14 years ago. A farce.