We need an energy miracle

[Doug MacIVER]

interesting read. don't know how truthful maybe someone here can cut through the weeds http://www.investors.com/politics/perspective/can-we-afford-free-wind-and-solar-energy/

 

[begreen]

The author is a prolific conservative writer who often defends corporate interests in biotech, energy health. What he does visit in this article is the quid pro quo of fossil fuel and ethanol subsidies that wind and solar power are up against. I got turned off when I read "Obama's DOE". That is partisan tripe.

There is a very well funded effort and campaign to kill alternative energy programs spearheaded by the Koch brothers and some utilities. Most recent is the ridiculous solar amendment on the floor in Florida.
In reality this is an effort to destroy net metering in the state. The amendment is now in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court due to deceptive language in it. Counterpoint article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/florida-solar-amendment-utility-companies-electricity

 

[sportbikerider78]

interesting read. don't know how truthful maybe someone here can cut through the weeds http://www.investors.com/politics/perspective/can-we-afford-free-wind-and-solar-energy/

His points are valid. That is the difficulty of wind...it is very localized and it's not always there. When there is too much wind, you have to use massive brakes to slow down the speed of the turbine. This causes heat and can catch the gearbox/turbine on fire...and you lose energy.

There are plenty of places where wind makes sense,,but it isn't ready to replace major power generation for many reasons.

 

[semipro]

His points are valid. That is the difficulty of wind...it is very localized and it's not always there.

Its pretty much always somewhere and we do have an distribution grid in place.
Many power plants import their fuel from somewhere distant. What's better: generating locally and transmitting power by wire elsewhere or transporting fuels to more local power plants?
Admittedly I don't know the answer.
I do know that energy gets transported around whether as fuel or electricity and there's costs associated with that.

 

[iamlucky13]

I'd say he uses some legitimate points to dismiss wind and solar on a blanket basis. It is true that big investors like Warren Buffet are raking in big profits due to the subsidies. It is definitely true that they are intermittent sources and that moving energy around to balance regions with high production with regions of high demand is expensive - an expense currently factored into the wholesale prices of existing sources where the fuel is moved around, but not priced into plans for significantly growing renewables. It's also true that the DOE is shaped by each president who oversees it and appoints their own secretary, so it is affected by political winds at least as much as science, engineering, and economic considerations.

But I can't sign on with blanket dismissals. Each project to develop more energy in a given area or for a specific utility is its own decision. The costs, advantages, and drawbacks should be evaluated for each. So if, for example, a utility in California can install a large-scale solar farm that will have 20-year amortized costs of $0.11/kWh (which is a realistic, unsubsidized number today, including interest or equivalent lost opportunity cost), and being in a region where the primary demand cycles align fairly well with the production cycles from solar (biggest in the summer near mid-day), and where spot wholesale prices for electricity at those times are often over $0.15/kWh, there is a strong economic case to be made for the solar option, in addition to their existing portfolio of more controllable energy sources. The same can not be said in my area, where the amortized cost would be more like $0.18/kWh, but the spot prices during the peak production season are usually less than $0.06/kWh.

That's not the same as trying to convert the whole grid to wind and solar in very short time periods, most plans for which are delusional. Reaching 20% wind and solar on a national average over the next 15-20 years is still extremely rapid growth, and far more credible.

There's also quite a few mistakes in the article that don't do much for his credibility.

One that jumped out at me was his mention of the Westinghouse AP1000 WPR Small Modular Reactor: There is no such thing. The AP1000 PWR (he wouldn't have flipped the letters if he actually knew the acronym means "pressurized water reactor") is by definition not a small modular reactor. It's the latest iteration of the traditional large stand-alone designs Westinghouse has been building since the 1950's.

You'll also won't find an AP1000, or even a small modular reactor, installed on only 5 acres. The reactor building itself might be about that size, but the entire facility - reactor building, turbine building, cooling tower, coolant ponds, spent fuel-holding area, operations center, transformers, etc usually covers several hundred acres. The San Onofre plant in California is the smallest I know of, with extra effort having been made to keep it compact due to its location, and with a lot less land needed because its cooled with sea water instead of a conventional cooling tower. It's 130 acres.

He also jumps on the long dead fallacy that land used for renewable energy is dead to other uses. The reality with wind farms is that over 95% of the land they're installed on is untouched, and in most cases, continues to be used as it was before the wind farm was erected (especially if it's agricultural land). Solar panels more significantly affect the land, but we're far from running out of roof-top space, nor desert.

He claims solar prices have been increasing, but while they are expected to bottom out eventually (probably fairly soon, in my opinion), this has not actually happened yet. Meanwhile, existing energy source prices have bottomed out - that is to say, the competition is also increasing in price.

 

[iamlucky13]

That is the difficulty of wind...it is very localized and it's not always there. When there is too much wind, you have to use massive brakes to slow down the speed of the turbine. This causes heat and can catch the gearbox/turbine on fire...and you lose energy.

You actually feather the blades (turn them parallel to the wind), so the torque they produce is reduced. At top wind speed, they feather so far the brake can safely stop the turbine completely. The few instances of turbine fires that sometimes make the news are due to a failure of either the blade pitch control, the brake, or the gearbox. Winds high enough to necessitate shutdown are relatively common, but this kind of failure is actually pretty rare.

Which does not diminish your main point, however. Overspeed conditions, just like underspeed conditions, are part of the intermittency of wind that make it effectively a supplemental source of electricity. Improved transmission and storage can mitigate this intermittency, but not for free, and with eventual limits.

 

[zelachowski]

Nicoli Tesla had a plan to harness free electric. George Westinghouse and JP Morgan, cut all his funding driving him into bankruptcy. Their point was with free electric how do they make money. Bill Gates is a smart, wealthy man, but how does he get that past Wall Street and government officials and lobbyists that own the lawmakers. I don't see it happening, in my opinion. I love technology, but the biggest lobby group in Washington is the public utilities.

 

[iamlucky13]

You make money by selling the devices that generate the electricity. General Electric and Westinghouse both largely got out of the business of generating electricity in favor of selling the devices to do so a really long time ago. Some of their newest competitors are companies like Solarworld and Vestas.

 

[woodgeek]

Ugh. The original article has quite a few errors. The author makes a single observation of still turbines and concludes that wind power nationwide is a farce? Jump to conclusions much?

Capacity factor for turbines (average power to rated power) is ~30%. Of course, this does not mean 100% power for 30% of the time, but it prob does mean still turbines at least 25% of the time or more. So what?

As for the govt subsidy for building the turbines? Actual its a modest production credit. If people build a wind farm that doesn't produce they get no tax subsidy and lose their shirts. In reality, people usually survey wind speed carefully at a site for a year or more before deciding to build...and then it turns out to be a very low risk investment.

Wanna talk about bogus energy sources....how about fracked oil? The frackers total outstanding debts (run up when oil was $100/barrel mind you) are close to $40 for every barrel they have produced to date! IOW, even when they were getting $100 barrel, they still needed to borrow another $40/barrel to keep the lights on. Anyone actually think they are making a profit at $35? Anybody think they can make a profit at $50 or even $75, when their costs to date have been $140??

 

[jebatty]

In Minnesota there are few generating local utilities. Most buy electricity from very large, and often distant, generating and transmission facilities, and the local utilities make their money on local distribution. The distant generating facilities can be anything: coal, gas, wind, solar, hydro, etc. Distribution, whether local or high tension transmission lines, doesn't care where the electricity comes from. Solar, wind and hydro within a fraction are cost competitive with coal and gas and have few if any of the hefty health and environmental costs of coal and gas. We already have the guts of the "energy miracle" in place or available. It is the proverbial elephant in the room.

 

[sportbikerider78]

Its pretty much always somewhere and we do have an distribution grid in place.
Many power plants import their fuel from somewhere distant. What's better: generating locally and transmitting power by wire elsewhere or transporting fuels to more local power plants?
Admittedly I don't know the answer.
I do know that energy gets transported around whether as fuel or electricity and there's costs associated with that.

This is how a typical plant power generation facility works. You have numerous systems like this cogen facility I grabbed a google image of. You have some fossil fuel powering a turbine which directly generates electricity and then a steam turbine which runs off of the exhaust heat to create steam and generate electricity.


This system is quite efficient. Companies like GE, Westinghouse, Siemens, Dresser Rand, Alstom and many others have gotten very good at this. The systems stay at maximum efficiency when they are run at their designed load, all of the time. They lose a great deal of efficiency when they are cycled on and off. Just like your car, when it is started and stopped, it pollutes the most when it is put in this condition.

Picture the above system as something that just stays on. It is run at 80% capacity and just stays on like a light bulb. Always running. This is your base power generation for a city.

Now when everyone wakes up in the morning, and when they come home from work, there is a surge in power demand. In order to meet this demand, many power companies turn on auxiliary power sources that many times don't have cogen power generation...not as efficient systems. Some overseas smaller towns may even fire up an aircraft engine generator (Samsung makes these) or large diesel generators. Then when the power surge is over and everyone goes to work or goes to bed, they turn them off till the next surge.

Now enter wind power into the grid. The big base cogen unit stays running,,,that doesn't change. But when and to what capacity do you fire up the smaller generators? These smaller guys end up polluting much more with a wind system in place, even if they are not running as much, because they are getting turned off and on more.
Yes you are using wind as power, but you are not improving the overall environmental situation at all and may even be making it worse.

I've spent 7-10 years of my career having these types of conversations with experts while working in the gas, steam, nuclear and wind field. There are many political sides to this issue, but this one is NOT a political issue. This is an engineering challenge. Sadly, the politics of "let's get more wind power" ignores the reality that it may be causing more pollution, not less.

 

[begreen]

Wind power is supplemental, not intended for sole source. The article echoes similar energy corporate funded attacks on wind and solar. The idle wind generator attack was in full force around 2011? when some of the more famous wind generators in Altamont Pass were shut down. Opponents pointed out that the idle generators in the ideal wind site were a waste, but actually this was just temporary and intentional. Old smaller and shorter generators were being replaced with large and much taller generators. Part of this changeout was to better protect raptors flying there. IIRC that changeout should be complete by now and more power than ever is being generated in those passes.

 

[begreen]

All power systems have their pros and cons. Respecting the opinions of those with vested interest in gas power generation, there appears to be differing opinions on the load demand issue.
“The argument that we need this baseload power ticking over in the background is basically false,” Heron told RenewEconomy after the conference.
“We don’t have a constant demand, so this idea that we need a constant supply is a myth.”
And as for the suggestion that wind energy is too unreliable to make any kind of meaningful contribution to the National Electricity Market, that’s a myth too, says Heron.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/28/wind-power-cheaper-reliable-natural-gas/

 

[semipro]

Sadly, the politics of "let's get more wind power" ignores the reality that it may be causing more pollution, not less.

Point well made.
It seems to me though that this situation only exists because of how we've historically handled variable power demands which made complete sense given historical available technologies, circumstances, and economics. As we develop new tech including RE and grid storage this should change though and those smaller dirty generators hopefully won't be needed.
As RE is tossed into the grid mix it definitely creates some new challenges and some opportunities as well. In situ residential and commercial PV is one example. The benefits of local generation and the impact on the grid as far as line losses, reliability, and capacity are potentially a game changer. More local generation may open up capacity for better distribution of sources like wind over longer distance transmission lines.
Its a very interesting optimization challenge.

 

[woodgeek]

My own reading on the subject has suggested that generation utilities hate RE because it **reduces** peaker demand, and peakers are quite inefficient and expensive (and thus profitable to operate).

On the other hand, its not like we have any choice....climate concerns will require a mostly RE energy system. If we need to build out long distance HVDC transmission, grid battery storage, advanced demand control or all the above, so be it. When the 30-50% 'efficient' fossil plants are scrap, they will not be emitting anymore and we can stop arguing.

 

[iamlucky13]

We don’t have a constant demand, so this idea that we need a constant supply is a myth.”

Constant supply is not the issue. The real issue is you need supply that meets your varying demand, and if you can't schedule the supply sufficiently, you can't meet the demand. Wind can fit within that supply as long as there is enough total supply to meet the peak demand simultaneously with the minimum wind production. You will end up buying nominally a lot of excess peak capacity (combined wind + traditional). You do have redundancy with traditional sources, too, but with traditional sources, that might credibly be single-digit percentage margins, where as with wind, it would be high double digit. Part of the excess cost is made up by the lack of fuel consumption by the wind turbines, but not all of it.

You don't need all of your backup power constantly running as spinning reserve, however, and even when spinning in reserve the fuel consumption is reduced compared to under load, so your emissions are definitely smaller than depending solely on scheduleable sources.

His comments about it being extremely unlikely to have hundreds of wind turbines simultaneously break down is misleading. That was never the concern. An actual concern, proven in real events such periodic brownouts in Texas, which is the third most wind-dependent region on the planet after Germany and Spain (with over 3 times as much capacity as frequently-vaunted Denmark), is the regular occurrence of region-wide calm periods. At the moment, the magnitude of wind variation is in the same ballpark as what already happens with conventional sources - like he points out, accidents at conventional plants can and sometimes do take a GW or two off the grid instantly. As wind expands, however, so does the magnitude of capacity dropouts.

Currently, no single large region has the amount of renewables installed where this becomes a major problem with the current system. Germany is getting close with just shy of 15% of their electricity coming from wind last year. Denmark was significantly higher, but is such a small area it has to be looked at in the context of the surrounding region, with which it trades electricity back and forth constantly.

 

[begreen]

Good insights from everyone here. This is a great discussion.

 

[jebatty]

I haven't seen a control system for home solar PV that would automatically shunt excess power to storage when PV output exceeds house demand, and then draw from storage when house demand exceeds PV output. Maybe the concept of the Tesla wall packs do this. My estimate is that 20 kWh (maybe 10 kWh with some care in usage) of storage on such a system would allow our household to go off-grid. The point is that I think there are lots of ways to skin the cat, and power management down to the household level is not unreasonable, some is already being done on AC, peak load management schemes, interruptible power management, etc. What is unreasonable is the expectation for every person/business to have available unlimited variability in energy supply.

 

[woodgeek]

The Tesla powerwall DOES do what you want Jim, and its for sale...not a concept.

Not that I would want to pay for one. I think their early adopters are doing their beta testing.

 

[iamlucky13]

Good insights from everyone here. This is a great discussion.

It's rather refreshing to have this sort of discussion online while remaining generally civil all around. That doesn't happen on topics like this on most sites.

 

[DUMF]

The author is a prolific conservative writer who often defends corporate interests in biotech, energy health. What he does visit in this article is the quid pro quo of fossil fuel and ethanol subsidies that wind and solar power are up against. I got turned off when I read "Obama's DOE". That is partisan tripe.

There is a very well funded effort and campaign to kill alternative energy programs spearheaded by the Koch brothers and some utilities. Most recent is the ridiculous solar amendment on the floor in Florida.
In reality this is an effort to destroy net metering in the state. The amendment is now in the hands of the Florida Supreme Court due to deceptive language in it. Counterpoint article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/florida-solar-amendment-utility-companies-electricity

Fine discussion, except for the extreme confirmational bias of "sides" in some posts as illustrated here.
Try to discuss without looking at issues as the intellectual hammer: that if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Evil conservatives, oh so good us liberals. Meaning seeing issues from a single point of view; searching for online information that only confirms our point of view. Mother Jones indeed.

For every Koch, there's a Buffet. Can we call out "liberal" as some do calling "conservative" ? So, should people of lower income be forced to subsidize those who can afford a Tesla or turbine or solar collectors by taxes and higher electric rates ? It's a valid concern that is truly non partisan. In northern New England do we destroy landscapes for intermittent power generating turbines ? The right and left righteousness is not solving anything.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

the weeds in this case will always point in one direction with some here. the distribution and cost side of the original article made sense to me. as an example Kingston ,mass. built a single large turbine. they forgot to factor in the connection costs, it almost derailed the project. problem was construction was already underway. with significant additional cost it was connected. personal experience is a relation that built a large turbine and paid 125k to connect. the side garbage posted aside, I've managed to learn some with what has been discussed.
as an aside "Obama's DOE" is a cabinet position and policy comes from the President

 

[begreen]

Point taken. As noted, I've learned a lot from this thread.

 

[peakbagger]

I haven't seen a control system for home solar PV that would automatically shunt excess power to storage when PV output exceeds house demand, and then draw from storage when house demand exceeds PV output.

Outback (and others) has some very powerful software control of their off grid systems. I believe they have an operating mode that does what you describe. Essentially it is a standard off grid control mode with an import from utility if the state of charge (SOC) of the storage media drops below a minimum setpoint. If the system is not connected to the grid its the same setpoint that would turn on the generator. I expect they also have an export to utility function if the batteries are fully charged and grid is available. In an off grid scenario, the system can turn on "opportunity loads" if the SOC exceeds a setpoint. Unlike grid tied inverters that are designed to be plug and play and "dumb" , off grid gear is designed to be quite flexible. The trade off is set up is far more complicated and is essentially custom for each install. The Outback equipment is modular with a central control bus so different configurations of hardware are controlled by the same integrated logic. There is substantial upcharge for the battery bank and extra electronics plus the PV array has to be configured differently although the high voltage Schneider system is capable of high voltage strings.

One of the operating modes that the utilities really don't like is peak shifting, the house runs off utility power at night and then exports the solar generation from day time hours stored in the batteries ,at the highest day time rates in areas with tiered rates (like southern California). Some folks also have been charging up the batteries with night time power and reselling it as solar during peak rate periods . There is a big incentive rate in CA for grid batteries that effectively act as load regulation, the technology is still being developed but some is deployed. Of course it comes down to who pays for the batteries?.

How Europe gets away with very large solar and wind generation is using very large pumped hydro installation in Norway for grid stabilization . There is some minimal capacity in the US (Greenfield Mass has an example) but no where near enough. There was a large system called "Dickey Lincoln" in Maine that was proposed 30 years ago that was shot down to environmental issues. Hydro Quebec is proposing to supply the US with power from a huge interconnected pumped hydro system in northern Quebec. Its the size of a land mass starting at the Mass NY border and going all the way to the eastern tip of Maine. The trade off is a couple of terrorists with a little C4 could knock down the New England grid for weeks by taking out the transmission lines that run for hundreds if not thousands of miles. A few idiots knocked out one of the existing lines in VT target shooting a few years back and the replacement power cost to the grid was in the 10 of millions of dollars.

Much of "miracle" is already here in the US if society wants to make the environmental security and economic tradeoffs. Those with unsustainably cheap power are opposed to paying higher bills and some states use cheap power as an economic an advantage to pull in companies from other states.

 

[semipro]

hydro installation in Norway for grid stabilization

Anyone know offhand how efficient this method of storage is?
I imagine losses might be significant with generator and pump inefficiencies and hydraulic friction losses.