The quiet rise of solar power — and the financial problem that could arise

[Loren Pechtel]

So, the simple way to solve this problem is to charge a fee to hook up to the grid, and then buy and sell energy on the grid like any other commodity, rather than having the cost of connection and maintenance buried in the cost of energy.

Why are people so worked up about something that can be solved by accountants?

Because it would be an awful lot of accountants. A household with rooftop solar may become efficient enough to produce more electricity that it consumes, but it produces only during the day, and consumes at least some energy at night. The cost of a few large providers doing this on the interchange level or switching on or off on the scale of entire power plants is one thing, but tracking and switching for millions of households is more of a task. Really you need a technology solution, both for the tracking and the switching, and even then keeping track of everything is expensive.

It's not impossible, but it's not particularly easy either.

And utilities can make demands of industrial customers that they can't of home users.

My former employer had some problems with the power company--something wasn't good enough in the supply system. We blew up a couple of the power company's transformers even though we weren't drawing too much--no breakers were tripping. The real problem was undersized transformers that made invalid assumptions about peak loads--even though we staged our start-up loads to keep the load down their transformers couldn't handle it. Rather than put in a big enough one they made us stage the loads enough to keep their transformers from exploding. (And of course we had to pay for the extra power to keep those motors spinning during the staging process.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And on isnt a kwh price the same, this is the base load issue.

Production must cope with factory shifts starting in the morning, kettles going on, various peaks like breaks in the superbowl, and not needing much overnight. Economy 7 was introduced in UK for this.

What are needed are models that can cope with very significant fluctuations on both production and consumption sides.

That isn't the issue. It is about consumers using less electricity and the utility companies not being able to maintain their systems.

In the US, there are plenty of places that do the night-time pumping of water to large reservoirs atop of mountains, and then drain the reservoirs during the day to generate peak-time electricity.

 

[ksen]

In the US, there are plenty of places that do the night-time pumping of water to large reservoirs atop of mountains, and then drain the reservoirs during the day to generate peak-time electricity.

That's a thing?

You engineers can be pretty smart.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the US, there are plenty of places that do the night-time pumping of water to large reservoirs atop of mountains, and then drain the reservoirs during the day to generate peak-time electricity.

That's a thing?

Seems like a waste of electricity, a ton of inefficiency, but it is better than burning more fossil fuels.

There is a plant in PA that can create enough power to give over 10,000 environmentalists a smug feeling of superiority.

 

[ksen]

There is a plant in PA that can create enough power to give over 10,000 environmentalists a smug feeling of superiority.

and rightly so!

 

[Sarpedon]

For people without hydroelectric dams, there's been suggested the electric locomotives pulling wagons of gravel up the hill, then being allowed to roll down again.

I'm hoping these liquid metal batteries turn out to be better.

 

[SimpleDon]

The important point is that solar and wind are not even close to being base generation, the vast majority of the power that we need. They are simply just a way to generate some power without generating carbon dioxide.

There is no reasonable method for storing the large amounts of power that would be required to allow solar and wind to provide base power, not to mention that the total installed base of solar panels would have to be about three times the installed base power generation, with twice that number in storage capacity.

What is needed in the medium term 10 to 20 years is a zero carbon emitting, high density, central power generating method.

Fortunately we have such a technology available. Unfortunately for a lot of very bad reasons we are not using it. Nuclear power. It is trapped in an almost perfect storm of bad thinking from both the right and the left.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fortunately we have such a technology available. Unfortunately for a lot of very bad reasons we are not using it. Nuclear power. It is trapped in an almost perfect storm of bad thinking from both the right and the left.

Sorry, too many years of hating nuclear power to turn back now.

 

[dismal]

Why is it more costly to produce at certain times? A kwH is a kwH isn't it?

Because base load plants are more efficient than peak load plants.

Because the most peaky of the peaking plants must recover all of their costs in the few hours they run each year.

I can go in to more detail if you are sincerely interested. But the gist of it is that there is an enormous capital cost required to be able to deliver the peak hour amount of electricity that largely sits idle most of the rest of the time, so incremental demand at the peak hour imposes a very high incremental capital cost whereas incremental demand at an off-peak hour imposes just incremental fuel cost of a fairly efficient plant.

 

[SimpleDon]

That's a thing?

Seems like a waste of electricity, a ton of inefficiency, but it is better than burning more fossil fuels.

There is a plant in PA that can create enough power to give over 10,000 environmentalists a smug feeling of superiority.

There are a number of so-called pumped storage plants in the US. But they are designed and operated to replace the need for peak power, not to provide base power. They pump through the night to generate for the three hours of peak power demand. For a lot of reasons they would be less efficient operating as base power plants. But the biggest drawback is the limited number of suitable mountains to cut off, especially concerning the heightened environment awareness of today.

Google pumped storage.

This should have been a response to ksen by the way.

 

[SimpleDon]

Fortunately we have such a technology available. Unfortunately for a lot of very bad reasons we are not using it. Nuclear power. It is trapped in an almost perfect storm of bad thinking from both the right and the left.

Sorry, too many years of hating nuclear power to turn back now.

It is not just the haters of nuclear power. The supporters of nuclear power have done a good job of trying to make it the worse that it can possibly be. The parallel path of making nuclear power and nuclear bombs prematurely locked us into the uranium fuel cycle and its high pressure, less stable, inefficient reactors. The insistence that all parts of the development and supply of nuclear power be subject to the forces of profit making and competition leave us currently unable to break out of the uranium fuel cycle and its high pressure steam reactors. All of which stunt the development of alternative reactor designs and fuel cycles.


There are a large number of people who are irrationally afraid of nuclear power. It in its current form has a good safety record, much better than any other form of power. It emits much less radioactive materials into the environment than power generation from burning coal. But most people can't get passed the vision of the mushroom cloud, the three eyed fish on The Simpsons and having to stand guard over 10 thousand years of ever increasing amounts of the worst poisons known to man. None of which is true, by the way.


See, I can make everyone mad, not just free market enthusiasts.

 

[ksen]

Why is it more costly to produce at certain times? A kwH is a kwH isn't it?

Because base load plants are more efficient than peak load plants.

Because the most peaky of the peaking plants must recover all of their costs in the few hours they run each year.

I can go in to more detail if you are sincerely interested. But the gist of it is that there is an enormous capital cost required to be able to deliver the peak hour amount of electricity that largely sits idle most of the rest of the time, so incremental demand at the peak hour imposes a very high incremental capital cost whereas incremental demand at an off-peak hour imposes just incremental fuel cost of a fairly efficient plant.

I'm a little interested.

I had no idea that base plants and peaking plants were different plants.

 

[dismal]

Seems like a waste of electricity, a ton of inefficiency, but it is better than burning more fossil fuels.

There is a plant in PA that can create enough power to give over 10,000 environmentalists a smug feeling of superiority.

There are a number of so-called pumped storage plants in the US. But they are designed and operated to replace the need for peak power, not to provide base power. They pump through the night to generate for the three hours of peak power demand. For a lot of reasons they would be less efficient operating as base power plants. But the biggest drawback is the limited number of suitable mountains to cut off, especially concerning the heightened environment awareness of today.

Google pumped storage.

Well, obviously they can't be base power because they do not add any net power. They are large consumer of power on a net basis. Pumped storage hydro is extremely expensive, requires a certain geography, and is used mainly as an emergency source of power to maintain grid integrity. For a completely cold start you can dump a bunch of water through a turbine an crank out hundreds of MW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seems like a waste of electricity, a ton of inefficiency, but it is better than burning more fossil fuels.

There is a plant in PA that can create enough power to give over 10,000 environmentalists a smug feeling of superiority.

There are a number of so-called pumped storage plants in the US. But they are designed and operated to replace the need for peak power, not to provide base power. They pump through the night to generate for the three hours of peak power demand.

That is what I said.

For a lot of reasons they would be less efficient operating as base power plants. But the biggest drawback is the limited number of suitable mountains to cut off, especially concerning the heightened environment awareness of today.

I'm almost certain that it would be impossible to use such a setup as a base plant.

Google pumped storage.

I've worked on a Pumped Storage site.

 

[SimpleDon]

Why is it more costly to produce at certain times? A kwH is a kwH isn't it?

Because base load plants are more efficient than peak load plants.

Because the most peaky of the peaking plants must recover all of their costs in the few hours they run each year.

I can go in to more detail if you are sincerely interested. But the gist of it is that there is an enormous capital cost required to be able to deliver the peak hour amount of electricity that largely sits idle most of the rest of the time, so incremental demand at the peak hour imposes a very high incremental capital cost whereas incremental demand at an off-peak hour imposes just incremental fuel cost of a fairly efficient plant.

Most peaking units are natural gas turbines, basically jet engines with generators attached.Very inefficient but they can be brought on line very quickly, in a matter of minutes.

They are so inefficient that they are better sources of heat than they are of power. So much so that I used them in place of natural gas hot air generators used to dry wet building materials like sand or crushed and ground rock. The electrical power generated is a bonus. Unfortunately these kinds of solutions, collectively known as co-generation, are frowned on by the politically powerful utilities.

 

[dismal]

Because base load plants are more efficient than peak load plants.

Because the most peaky of the peaking plants must recover all of their costs in the few hours they run each year.

I can go in to more detail if you are sincerely interested. But the gist of it is that there is an enormous capital cost required to be able to deliver the peak hour amount of electricity that largely sits idle most of the rest of the time, so incremental demand at the peak hour imposes a very high incremental capital cost whereas incremental demand at an off-peak hour imposes just incremental fuel cost of a fairly efficient plant.

I'm a little interested.

I had no idea that base plants and peaking plants were different plants.

Well, the first thing to understand is that demand varies significantly by time of day and season.

For example in Texas summer peak demand might be 90 GW and shoulder month peak demand might be 20 GW. Then even on that day where that peak hour demand of 90 GW is hit, night time demand might only be 45 GW.

Some charts here that illustrate the seasonal and intra-day fluctuations in load:

http://www.pennenergy.com/index/blogs/the-black-swan-blog/2013/12/why_renewables_haven.html

It's a function of weather (air conditioning is the big driver) and a variety of other things. The peak hour tends to be around 4PM sometime in a heat wave in August. It's hot, businesses are still open, people have started to get home and turn on their TVs and cook dinner, etc.

So, at any given time this load is by dispatching from dozens of discrete generation facilities with a fuel and capital cost that varies widely. Some of these are going to run almost all the time (baseload) these will tend to be highly fuel efficient but high capital cost facitilties. The capital is amortized over lots of units of production. These will be your nukes, your efficient coal plants, and maybe some highly efficient combined cycle gas turbines. At the other end you have peakers that only run for a few hours a year. There is not much point in making these fuel efficient because they only run a few hours a year. You want to get this capacity for as little capital as possible. So, maybe these are simple cycle gas turbines or old inefficient facilities that are brought out of mothballs for a few weeks a year. Then, you got a bunch of intermediate plants that are in between.

 

[SimpleDon]

.... I've worked on a Pumped Storage site.

I never know how much non-engineers know about these things. I wasn't implying that you had said anything that was wrong. As I said in my edit the response was actually meant for ksen, not you.

I have only toured some pumped storage facilities in Tennessee and Colorado. In the future I will completely defer to you on the subject.

 

[scombrid]

Well, obviously they can't be base power because they do not add any net power. They are large consumer of power on a net basis. Pumped storage hydro is extremely expensive, requires a certain geography, and is used mainly as an emergency source of power to maintain grid integrity.

I think the pumped storage units back home in Virginia are money savers even though they don't add net power. The base capacity exceeds demand during off-peak hours and the big base water boilers can't just shut down when not needed (especially the nukes). Since they are hot all night anyway, they might as well use that heat to do something. So they do the massive work of pumping water up a hill so they have it on hand for peak.

The Bath County project is a respectable size. It operates regularly and not just in emergency situations.

https://www.dom.com/about/stations/hydro/bath-county-pumped-storage-station.jsp

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

.... I've worked on a Pumped Storage site.

I never know how much non-engineers know about these things. I wasn't implying that you had said anything that was wrong. As I said in my edit the response was actually meant for ksen, not you.

I have only toured some pumped storage facilities in Tennessee and Colorado. In the future I will completely defer to you on the subject.

Damn straight!

But seriously, I've only been involved with infrastructure at one of them, not the energy side of them.

What if we compromise? Mix nuclear power and hydropump sites? Have a pool of uranium goo atop a mountain and then let that flow down and get injected into the river... and use the energy from that?

 

[ksen]

I'm a little interested.

I had no idea that base plants and peaking plants were different plants.

Well, the first thing to understand is that demand varies significantly by time of day and season.

For example in Texas summer peak demand might be 90 GW and shoulder month peak demand might be 20 GW. Then even on that day where that peak hour demand of 90 GW is hit, night time demand might only be 45 GW.

Some charts here that illustrate the seasonal and intra-day fluctuations in load:

http://www.pennenergy.com/index/blogs/the-black-swan-blog/2013/12/why_renewables_haven.html

It's a function of weather (air conditioning is the big driver) and a variety of other things. The peak hour tends to be around 4PM sometime in a heat wave in August. It's hot, businesses are still open, people have started to get home and turn on their TVs and cook dinner, etc.

So, at any given time this load is by dispatching from dozens of discrete generation facilities with a fuel and capital cost that varies widely. Some of these are going to run almost all the time (baseload) these will tend to be highly fuel efficient but high capital cost facitilties. The capital is amortized over lots of units of production. These will be your nukes, your efficient coal plants, and maybe some highly efficient combined cycle gas turbines. At the other end you have peakers that only run for a few hours a year. There is not much point in making these fuel efficient because they only run a few hours a year. You want to get this capacity for as little capital as possible. So, maybe these are simple cycle gas turbines or old inefficient facilities that are brought out of mothballs for a few weeks a year. Then, you got a bunch of intermediate plants that are in between.

I changed my mind, I'm not really that interested.

joke!

It's amazing to me that we even have power.