Solar Eclipse and California Grid 8-21-2017

The California grid (CAISO) managed quite well during and after the partial solar eclipse of 21 August, 2017.   Here in California, the eclipse reached approximately 70 to 75 percent of totality.   The skies did turn a slight bit less bright, but not much.   There were considerable clouds early in the morning that broke into partly cloudy to clear skies by noon. 

The impact on the state's solar PV generating plants was, as expected, fairly severe.   The prediction was for approximately 6-7 MW to decrease as the sun dimmed, then 7-8 MW increase as the sun brightened.  The graphs below show the results.  

Fast-acting natural gas plants, almost all combined cycle plants, responded nicely and kept the grid healthy.  

Figure 1.   CAISO Renewables Output of 8/21/2017

Figure 2   CAISO Grid Demand and Total Renewables for 8/21/2017

Figure 3  CAISO Total Demand v Net Demand on Eclipse Day 8-21-2017

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Solar Output Exceeds 100,000 MWh per Day in 2017

Subtitle:  Another Renewable Record in California - Zero Problems on Grid

A rather common opinion is that solar power on a grid causes a great many problems, and should therefore never be supported nor considered as a source of electricity.   The facts, though, give the lie to such an opinion.   Here in sunny Southern California, the grid-scale solar generation is approximately 9,300 MW from the photo-voltaic (PV) systems, plus another 500 to 600 MW from solar thermal plants.  These combined during the longest days of this year, late June, to provide just over 100,000 MWh of electricity into the grid.  see photos. 

Fig 1 Renewable Power Output, from CAISO website

The combined electricity from solar, for June 28, 2017, was 101,850 MWh.  For the previous day, June 27, the output was 103,095 MWh. 

That may just be a record for solar electricity production in any state in the US.  
To put that in perspective, the California grid demand was approximately 30,000 MW at the noon hour. Solar provided approximately one-third of that demand.    Parenthetically, the wind provided another 2,600 MW right around noon.   That is approximately another 9 percent of the demand. 

There were no blackouts.   There were no rolling blackouts.   There were no frequency control issues.  There were, in fact, no extra-ordinary occurrences at all that day on the grid.  

Fig 2  Renewable Power Output, from CAISO website

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy a Good Thing?

Subtitle: 100 Percent Will Not Happen on a National Basis

It has become increasingly clear that renewable energy forms, especially solar and wind turbines, are and will be important sources of electricity.   Along with this fact, some cities and even a few states have declared they will become 100 percent renewable.   What that means is they will somehow obtain all their annual electricity, measured in MWh, from renewable sources.   It should be noted that California (a large and rather stupid state on the West coast of the United States), has already sourced more than 27 percent of all power sold in the state in 2015 from renewable sources.   Not all of that was solar and wind, however, and not all of that was generated in-state, either.   California counts renewable energy in what is perhaps a unique way: large hydroelectric power is not part of their counting.   If large hydroelectric sources were included, California would be well past 40 percent for the year. 

A rather interesting discussion along these lines occurred several days ago (and may still be exchanging comments) at Dr. Judith Curry's blog Climate Etc. (see link)   The post was written by an anonymous author, who appears to be involved in some way with the PJM grid, the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland grid that serves multiple states along the East coast and Mid-West.   I read the post with some interest, then entered the discussion with a few comments.   Rather than replay all that here, this post will discuss some aspects of renewable power production and integration into existing grids.  

As background, a few comparisons between the California grid and PJM.  California grid is known by the name CAISO, for California Independent System Operator.  (see link to CAISO website)

PJM and CA have significant differences, and therefore will have different problems. The most obvious differences are in the thermal and nuclear portions of the generation mix: CA has but one nuclear plant of 2200 MW running, zero coal plants, and a great number of efficient and agile gas-fired plants. PJM, as I understand it, has several nuclear plants, many coal-fired plants, and also some gas-fired plants. A notable gas-fired CCGT plant will soon be brought online in Lordstown, OH for PJM to help cope with wind power changes. (see link to SLB article on this plant)

Next, renewables in CA are from approximately 11,000 MW grid-scale solar, and 5000 MW of wind. PJM, again by my reading, has also 5000 MW of wind and very little solar at grid scale.

It also must be noted that the CA grid is smaller in size, measured in peak load, annual generation, and generating capacity compared to PJM.

Population – 65 million PJM; 38 million CAISO (ratio 1.71)
• Generating capacity – 176,569 megawatts PJM; 70,900 CAISO (ratio 2.48)
• Peak demand – 165,492 megawatts PJM; 46,000 CAISO (ratio 3.59)
• Annual energy delivery – more than 792 million megawatt-hours PJM; approximately 295 million for CAISO (ratio 2.68)
(the differences are almost entirely due to climate, mild in CA and typical US Northeast – aka brutal winters – in PJM region)
• Nuclear Power installed - 30,000 megawatts PJM; 2,200 in CAISO (ratio 15)
• Nuclear as percent of all capacity - 17 pct PJM; 2.8 pct CAISO (ratio 5.9)

The problems for PJM will stem from much higher nuclear as a percent of total annual generation; as has been noted, nuclear does not reduce load in the US. It appears that PJM has approximately 30 GW of nuclear installed, compared to 2.2 GW nuclear in CA. However, PJM is surely acutely aware that the nuclear plants are closing in great numbers, as they reach the 40 year age mark. The next 10 years will see many if not most of the nuclear plants in PJM territory close. CA will close its final nuclear plant in the early 2020s.


Also, PJM is facing offshore wind power generation as a soon-to-be reality, with Maryland already announcing projects of approximately 500 MW. That is small as a percent of the PJM market, but will likely grow quickly.

Another significant difference in the PJM versus California situation is that PJM has many states integrated into the grid, compared to just one state for CAISO.  The importance of this is that PJM member states each have a renewable goal, and those are not all the same.  California has just the one state with a renewable goal, however, that goal keeps changing.  

Yet another important difference is the resource availability - how much solar energy hits the ground, and how much wind energy exists.  On this, the two grids are just about the opposite.  California has what is likely the best solar energy resources of any large state in the country.  Arizona has comparable sunshine, but a much smaller population.   PJM has much less solar energy due to the higher latitude and much more cloudy conditions.   Wind energy is small in California - and essentially already tapped out.   PJM states have substantial wind resources that have yet to be harvested.  

Now, to the heart of the matter: can any location, city, or state actually obtain 100 percent of its electricity on an annual basis from renewable energy?  The answer is Yes, of course it can.   The only questions are how much will the grid be modified, and how much will the electricity price change, if any. 

The Climate Etc article referenced above referenced a PJM publication that claims a hard limit exists for a grid, with 20 percent annual production from wind and solar.    That may very well be true for PJM, with all the nuclear and coal-fired plants on that grid.   But, in California, that is not a problem at all.   Some grid-scale storage is required, which California already has.   More storage will be installed as more solar PV production is installed, keeping the grid safe, reliable, and cost-effective.   

SLB has previous articles on grid-scale storage, with example technologies including batteries, ARES rail-based gravity trains, pumped storage hydroelectric, and others.  

As to achieving 100 percent renewables, that actually will not occur as long as large hydroelectric generation is not counted as a renewable.  The US average for large hydroelectric generation is approximately 7 to 8 percent on an annual basis of total electricity produced.  Various states have different percentages, with Washington State the highest due to the Columbia River and the several hydroelectric dams there.   (for numbers, the US produces approximately 4,000 million MWh each year, of which large hydroelectric dams produce approximately 250 to 300 million MWh each year - source EIA Electric Power Monthly Table 1.1). 

Even if one did count large hydroelectric as a renewable, the near future will not allow 100 percent renewables due to the great number of nuclear power plants (99 of them, although the numbers keep falling as more and more give up and shut down to stop their huge economic losses).    On average, nuclear power produces approximately 18 percent of the US' electricity (recent decade numbers range from 769 to 806 million MWh per year; same EIA source as for hydroelectric).  

Next, coal-fired power plants still produce the lion's share of US electricity, although that is declining rapidly with environmental regulations now in place.  Coal-based electricity was approximately 1,200 million MWh per year in 2016, which is approximately 30 percent of the US total of 4,000 million MWh, same source as for nuclear and hydroelectric.  

Therefore, on a national average, the US presently stands at 30 percent coal, 18 percent nuclear, and 8 percent hydroelectric, which combined provide 56 percent.   Even with nuclear plants closing, as most of them will certainly do within 15 years, and with coal-fired plants shutting down as their economic mines are exhausted and shut down, again within 20 years, the US still has 8 to 10 percent hydroelectric, depending on the annual rainfall.  

Concluding, the post title asks Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy a Good Thing?   The answer must be, yes, but only on a local basis, as engineers take adequate care to ensure grid safety, reliability, and cost effectiveness.   As noted here and elsewhere, California has not had price increases due to a greater and greater share of wind and solar generation.   Indeed, CA prices have barely kept up with inflation. (see link to SLB articles on this topic).  The grid has also remained quite stable and reliable. 

For many policy reasons, wind, solar, and other renewables are a very good thing.  Among the many reasons for this are job creation, absolutely free energy that has no foreign implications, inexhaustible energy, pollution-free energy, industries expanding into solar production and wind turbines, other industries racing to produce economically attractive grid-scale storage systems,  and innovations in grid system technology and controls.

Can PJM meet their renewable energy targets (approximately 25 percent by 2025), or will they have insurmountable difficulties?   The answer there is no, not with all those nuclear power plants on their grid, and the many coal-fired plants.  It is quite expensive and time-consuming to shut off a large coal-fired power plant, then start it back up again.  Nuclear plants, of course, simply refuse to do that, citing safety concerns.   So, with nuclear plants on PJM system stubbornly running all-out, and coal-fired plants losing money if they cycle on and off, PJM has some daunting challenges.   

Good luck to the engineers and planners on the PJM grid.  

It will be quite interesting to observe and report on their progress in meeting the 25 percent renewables mandates, in light of the PJM study that says 20 percent is an absolute hard limit.   

UPDATE 5/21/2017:  With 100 percent renewables on a national level clearly impossible, (hydroelectric will run for the foreseeable future), how then does a city or state intend to achieve 100 percent?  

The City of San Diego (again, in loony California), with a population of approximately 1.4 million, has a Climate Action Plan (2015) that calls for 100 percent renewable electricity by the year 2035.   They gave themselves a full 20 years to accomplish this, being such optimists.    How does this work, in San Diego's version?   The answer lies in a clever trick of buying electricity from a designated generator, but not from all the others that are also on the grid.   San Diego would identify solar, wind, and other renewable-energy generators and claim to purchase power only from them.   The problem occurs when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.   Wind is quite erratic in California, so on nights when the wind is barely stirring, how would San Diego find electricity to purchase?  

One answer is grid-scale storage; another is small-scale home-based electricity storage; another is time-shifting demand for electric vehicle charging; yet another (remote possibility) is long-distance power imports.  

Grid-scale storage already occurs in California (and other states) via pumped storage hydroelectric, massive batteries, and a rail-based gravity storage system is under construction on the California-Nevada border near Pahrump. 

Small-scale home-based storage is already available from several vendors including Tesla. 

A favored scheme by many renewable advocates is using millions of EV (electric vehicles) as grid loads while the batteries are charged up during sunny days or windy nights.  Then, the cars are plugged into the home where power can be supplied by the car's batteries into the home to run the big screen TV and DVD player, the lights, charge the cell phones, and even run the refrigerator.    One must wonder just exactly how big that car's batteries must be to achieve all that.  Another consideration is, if the car is running the house at night, how will the car be able to travel the next morning to the workplace?

The very long-distance importing power is an interesting scheme.  California has already implemented a version of this, both importing and exporting power, to help balance the grid as more and more solar power plants are brought online.    The term is regional integration, or regional energy market.  see link to CAISO presentation from 2016.  The basic idea is to integrate several states into a regional energy grid, much as PJM grid has done on the East coast, MISO does in the Mid-West see link, and others.   California can no longer be an island, in the electrical grid sense.   With multiple states on a common grid, the hope is that the wind will always be blowing at some location, providing power that can be exported to users that are becalmed.   The problem with this, of course, is that on a day with strong wind over the entire region, far too much wind power would be produced.   As that happens, grid-scale storage would be needed to absorb the production.  ---  end update 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Solar in California Sets Record - Again

Subtitle: 9700 MW on March 28, 2017

Setting new records for grid-scale solar output is becoming routine in California, with what appears to be the current record set last Tuesday (March 28) at approximately 11:15 a.m..  The chart shows a screenshot of CAISO's webpage with solar output by hour in the gold color.  The red arrow shows a peak of approximately 9700 MW.  This is the combined output of solar PV and solar thermal, of which solar thermal is approximately 500 MW.  

New solar plants are being added to the grid each year.  

UPDATE 4/22/2017:  Another record was set yesterday with combined grid-scale solar at 9,854 MW at 1300 hours.   -- end update

UPDATE 5/20/2017:  Yet another solar record was set yesterday at 9,880 MW at 12:00 hours. -- end update.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Aliso Canyon and Duck Curve Demand in SoCal

Subtitle:  California is very fortunate with a mild Summer thus far


An interesting article from 29 August, 2016 in the Ventura (CA) Star newspaper, on the issue of natural gas shortage and its impact on electricity production in California.  SLB has had several articles on this, links here.  

The journalist, Tom Elias, takes the position that the entire threat of blackouts was false, and states it was "a lie" and "a bunch of hooey."

The Star article is "Blackout threats exposed as power stays on"  see link 

Mr. Elias is wrong.  

I left a short comment on his article, shown below:

"Daily consumption of natural gas is not the proper metric. Peak demand for fuel to gas-fired power plants occurs on an hourly, and sometimes shorter basis. 

The important concern is the ability to rapidly ramp up the natural gas-fired plants in the late afternoon, typically between 5 and 7 pm. 

A case on point is from Saturday, September 3, 2016 when CAISO reports the total production, excluding wind and solar, increased almost 3,300 MW in the one-hour period 18:00 to 19:00 hours (6 to 7 pm).   [Update 5 Sept 2016:  yesterday, 4 Sept 2016, the duck curve ramping rate reached 3,700 MW in the same 6 to 7 pm hour.  graphics shown below. -- end update]

For those who want to understand more on this issue, search for "duck curve" and CAISO. Plenty has been written."   -- end of Sowell comment 

A bit more discussion is probably in order. 

There are at least two ways that a shortage of natural gas can occur in the region: sustained high demand for electricity such as in a heat wave that lasts for days, and a rapid increase in demand such as occurs daily when solar power production declines in the late afternoon. 

A combination of late afternoon, imported power curtailed for any reason, hydroelectric power not available (perhaps due to the ongoing drought), a high pressure system stalls over the state causing wind to decline or even stop, or an unplanned outage of high-efficiency combined-cycle gas turbine plants, will cause the hourly natural gas demand to surge. 

Thus far, September 4 of 2016, the state has had very good fortune in all those categories just mentioned.   No severe and prolonged heat waves happened.   We have a bit of water in the lakes so some hydropower is available.  

Nearby is a chart from CAISO, with my additions to illustrate the point. The green line, known as the "duck's belly and neck" is the total load less wind and solar power.  The portion circled in red shows the greatest change in that load, over a one-hour period.  To my knowledge, that 3.3 GW increase in one hour on 3 Sept 2016 is the highest to date on the CAISO grid.  

The rate of change in the late afternoon, or ramping rate, is one of the chief concerns of planners and state agencies.   As more and more solar power is added to the grid, that ramping rate will also increase.  

And for the nuclear cheerleaders, I note here that adding nuclear power to the grid will not alleviate this problem.  

So, Mr. Elias is wrong.  We do need natural gas storage, if not from Aliso Canyon then from other sources.  We have been very fortunate thus far in California.   The weather has been unusually cool and mild so far this summer.  However, September is the month that usually has the highest temperatures and we can expect at least one prolonged heat wave. 

Update 5 Sept 2016:  more recent duck curve ramping rates.   Sunday, 4 Sept 2016 shows 3,700 MW ramping rate from 18:00 to 19:00 hours.  See areas outlined in red below. -- end update

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved 

Another Record for Solar Power in California

Subtitle:  8214 MW - Solar Power Production Records Keep Falling

UPDATE 8/13/2016:  A higher solar production was set on Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm, with 8,363 MW reported by CAISO.  -- end update

Yesterday, 6 August, 2016, saw yet another record production from grid-scale solar power plants in California.  From the California Independent System Operator, CAISO, combined PV and thermal solar power reached 8,214 MW at 1:25 pm.  

The graphic at right is a screenshot captured on a smart phone from caiso.com at that time.  

More solar power plants are under construction in California and will soon be adding their output to the grid.  

As written before on SLB, the state's ambitious renewable portfolio standard requires 50 percent renewables on an annual average by 2030, only 14 years away.  

Present annual average renewables is a bit more than 25 percent.   It is clear, then, that renewable output must double within 14 years to meet the mandate. 

With wind resources limited and almost fully exploited in California, solar power will be the growth area.  Solar thermal power plants are far more expensive to build than the PV plants, and I expect no more solar thermal plants.  The attraction of solar thermal is the ability to include a few hours of storage that can allow electricity production after the sun sets and when power demand peaks.  

However, a better solution to electricity storage is now available with batteries at grid-scale size.  Solar PV is cheaper to install and has far less impact on birds and other aspects of the environment, compared to birds killed by a solar power tower plant.  

The future of California renewables is solar PV in grid-scale sizes, with appropriate battery storage to manage grid fluctuations and storage.    The gigafactory that Tesla is building to turn out batteries will not only supply the electric car market, but also will supply the grid-scale battery market.  

It should be noted that the above production numbers are for metered, grid-scale solar facilities only.  Behind-the-meter rooftop solar PV installations are not included in those numbers.  California Public Utility Commission and California Solar Initiative report that 537,000 rooftop PV installations exist at present.  Output from those rooftop systems is not known with accuracy, but estimates based on average installed capacity of 5 to 7 kW each show an additional 2,100 MW of solar-based electricity was produced yesterday.  

And in a direct comment to the nay-sayers, it is noted that the grid performed admirably with no reported problems of stability, brownouts, nor blackouts.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

California Electricity Rates - Residential - Not That High

Subtitle: Annual Average Price Keeps Pace With Inflation

This post is likely to create a bit of controversy, as the chart Figure 1 shows that annual average residential electricity rates (cents/kWh) have kept up with inflation but not increased in real terms since 1996.  That is in stark contrast to the popular wisdom that electricity rates in California are out of control and skyrocketing due to shutting down nuclear plants (two of them in 2012) plus building expensive solar power and wind power.   What is actually going on is more complex. 

Figure 1.  Nominal prices adjusted for Consumer Price Index (CPI)

The data in Figure 1 for state-wide annual average residential electricity prices are from US Energy Information Agency (EIA) data; while the inflation adjustment is from the US Consumer Price Index.   The overall trend from 1990 at 10 cents to 2016 at 16 cents is a mere 2.5 percent compound annual growth rate. 

The argument that solar power and wind power have increased electricity rates is simply not credible, especially so when the very minor contribution of each is considered.  Solar contributed only 6 percent of the entire grid load, and wind only 5 percent in 2015 per the California Independent System Operator, CAISO.   Only five years earlier, the contribution of each was almost zero.  

Instead, the flat trend since 1996 is due to the steadily decreasing cost of natural gas, and the steadily increasing percentage of natural gas in the generation mix.  Also, California has almost constantly replaced old, inefficient gas-fired plants with new, state-of-the-art Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants with much greater efficiencies.   A new CCGT plant uses approximately one-half the natural gas as an older steam plant, for the same power output.   Therefore, the state is using much less gas per kWh generated, and the price of natural gas is much lower than in earlier years.   (As an aside, we all have the oil and gas companies to thank, with their expert use of precision directional drilling (PDD) and hydraulic fracturing, for bringing great quantities of natural gas to market and depressing the gas prices). 

It is also a fact, however, that electricity rates are quite complicated in California.   The state has a multiple tier system for power pricing based on the kWh used each month.  The rate structures have changed over the years.   The complex, and a bit un-fair system has caused a new and improved system to be developed by the California Public Utility Commission.  The CPUC website for the improved system, and the process to develop that system, is at "California Residential Electric Rate Redesign"  see link. 

Below is a portion of the Rate Redesign website statements:

"In 2001 during the energy crisis, California passed legislation that froze volumetric electricity rates for a large portion of residential electricity usage (i.e., usage less than 130% of the baseline energy allowance or customer tiers 1 and 2). As utilities' costs increased over the years, because tiers 1 and 2 were frozen by law, increases could only be borne by those customers consuming above 130% of baseline levels (or customers in tiers 3 and 4). As a result, the difference between the lowest and highest tiers has become very large, and rates for tiers 3 and 4 to more than double those for tiers 1 and 2.

In June 2012, the CPUC opened a Rulemaking to examine existing residential electric rate design, with the intention of ensuring that rates are both equitable and affordable for the foreseeable future, including for low-income customers.

On October 7, 2013, Governor Brown signed into law AB 327 (Perea), which allows the CPUC greater flexibility in setting residential rates, as well as:

o  Repeals rate increase limitations on energy usage tiers 1 and 2 (up to 130% of baseline) to allow rate reduction in tiers 3 and above.

o Revises rates for low-income ratepayers, pursuant to the CARE program such that the aggregate discount is between 30% and 35% the bill.

o Limits fixed charges to $10/month for non-CARE customers and $5/month for non-CARE customers.  (Should read $5/month for CARE customers -  Roger)

o Fixed charges may not increase by more than the consumer price index each year, starting on January 1, 2016.

o Allows for a reduction in the number of energy usage tiers in residential rates, but requires rates to have at least two tiers.

o Prohibits mandatory or default time-of-use pricing before January 1, 2018.


o Requires the CPUC to develop a new net metering rate, which would become available on January 1, 2017."

Conclusion

The state's average prices are keeping up with inflation, and no more.  However, the disparity between low users (less than 130 percent of the baseline kWh per month) and those with greater consumption (more than 130 percent of baseline) led to rate reform.  It is entirely possible for a low-use customer to be paying approximately 15 cents per kWh, while a residence with triple the baseline use would be paying 30 cents per kWh, or more.  

It is also clear from the chart in Figure 1, with the annual statewide average at 16 cents, solar power and wind power have purchase power agreements that are more than attractive to new investors.  It is unfortunate that wind power in California has already been essentially built-out, as there are few remaining locations with advantageous wind.  However, solar power is an entirely different story. 

The state has almost limitless square miles of otherwise un-used land with the famous California sun beating down daily.  Recent installed costs for grid-scale solar power plants indicate approximately $2,000 per kW installed, and with the California sun bringing 26 percent annual output, a plant can be built and operated at a 10 percent return on investment with power purchase agreement of 10 to 11 cents per kWh.    That is far, far less than what the utilities must pay for daytime power in the summer.    That is a bit more than what the utilities pay for incremental power in the winter daytime, however the amount of power the solar plants produce in winter is also much smaller.  On balance, the solar power plants are quite attractive at $2000 per kW.   More reductions in installed costs are imminent, so that $1800 and even $1500 per kW are only about 4 to 5 years in the future. 

There are some grid operating implications, but those will be explored in future articles. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Designing an Electrical Grid From Scratch

Subtitle: Ranting and Raving Does Not Produce A Useful Result

Sometimes one just has to laugh at the things others complain about, and even rant and rave about.  A blog article I wrote recently produced a rant (on WUWT), about how the California electrical grid and its operation are grossly unfair and should never have been allowed to reach the condition that it is in today.   The chief complaint, it appears, is the price paid by residential customers, what is known as the rate structure.   California does have some high rates, it is true, by law there are a few tiers or levels of price depending on the season and how much power one uses.   The more use in the summer during peak

California Energy Commission - major electric transmission lines 

demand, the higher the price.   Conversely, low use in Spring during offpeak hours has a low price. 

Another loud complaint is the use of renewable generating resources on the California grid. Most of the howls of indignation appear to be directed at solar power and wind power systems.   It seems that geothermal is not on the list that causes anger.    The utter confusion, indeed ignorance, of how hydroelectric power is treated as a renewable source or not is perhaps understandable.  Basically, most systems of 30 or smaller MW count as a renewable, while most larger systems do not.  

I requested the unhappy commenters to provide their solutions to how California should proceed, what would and would not be included in their ideal grid.   Their goal, of course, is to have cheaper power.    No response as of this date, however.   It seems it is much easier to complain than it is to offer workable, sound solutions.    I should point out that I have never seen a utility reduce their rates when adding new generation assets, or for transmission or distribution assets.   In fact, where nuclear power plants are being built, the utility (in Georgia, USA) obtained a special law from the state legislature to increase customers' power bills for the several years of the nuclear plant's construction. 

Therefore, I put together a few items that one should, and in some cases must consider (laws of many types play into the electricity issue).  

California already has quite a mix of generating types, including nuclear, gas-fired, petroleum coke-fired, oil-fired, diesel engines with generators, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, solar PV, solar thermal, biogas, and biomass.   Some storage is already provided by batteries, pumped storage hydroelectric, and a gravity rail system is under construction.  There are mandated combined heat-and-power (CHP) systems that replaced standard boilers.   In the gas-fired category, there are at least three types: steam, combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), and peaker plants or simple cycle gas turbines.   However, at least a few peaker plants are also CCGT.  

Below is a list of generating technologies, with perhaps others existing that do not readily come to mind after a bit of research.    In no particular order, then, here is a list of 46 generating and 7 storage possibilities.   Note:  BL denotes Base Load design, LF denotes Load Following.   There are substantial initial cost and operating cost implications for Load Following vs Base Load designs.   Acronyms may be familiar to readers, if not I can provide a link to a resource. 

1 Nuclear BL PWR - AP-1000
2 Nuclear BL PWR - EPR
3 Nuclear BL BWR - ABWR
4 Nuclear BL SMR
5 Nuclear BL LFTR  - MSR Thorium
6 Nuclear BL HTGR
7 Nuclear BL Fusion - Tokamak
8 Nuclear BL Fusion - LIFE
9 Nuclear - LF PWR - AP-1000
10 Nuclear - LF PWR - EPR
11 Nuclear - LF BWR - ABWR
12 Nuclear - LF SMR
13 Nuclear - LF LFTR  - MSR Thorium
14 Nuclear - LF HTGR
15 Nuclear - LF Fusion - Tokamak
16 Nuclear - LF Fusion - LIFE
17 Coal Rankine - Med Pres
18 Coal Rankine - USC
19 Coal Gasified - IGCC
20 Hydroelectric Large
21 Hydroelectric Small
22 Natural Gas Rankine
23 Natural Gas CCGT
24 Natural Gas SCGT
25 Natural Gas Methane SMR - Fuel Cell
26 Geothermal Rankine
27 Wind Onshore HAWT
28 Wind Onshore VAWT
29 Wind Offshore HAWT
30 Wind Offshore VAWT
31 Solar PV - utility scale
32 Solar PV - residential demand reduction
33 Solar Thermal w/o storage
34 Solar Thermal w/storage
35 Solar Pond - Rankine
36 Biomass Burn - Rankine
37 Biomass Synthetic Methane (Park process)
38 Biogas Methane collection
39 Wave Various
40 Tide         Turbine
41 Ocean Current Turbine
42 OTEC Thermal - Rankine
43 River Current - turbine
44 Oil         Rankine
45 Diesel Engine
46 Natural Gas ICE engine - cogen and tri-gen
47 Storage Pumped Hydroelectric - onshore
48 Storage Pumped Hydroelectric - offshore - MIT spheres
49 Storage Pumped Hydroelectric - combined onshore and offshore
50 Storage Battery
51 Storage Capacitor
52 Storage Gravity - rail

53 Storage Compressed air

With those as the available cards in the proverbial deck, one must then have solid answers to a few dozen questions (or issues) about electrical grid design and operation.   Below are listed just a few of the hundreds of issues that must be resolved in an electrical grid.   I pose these to the ranters and ravers, with the full expectation that they will not ever provide any answers.   Perhaps merely reading the questions will give them pause, and a bit of respect for a grid as large and complex as the California grid.   

1. Power grid first of all must be safe
2. Power grid second, must be reliable
3. Power grid third, must sell affordable power
4. Utilities must obtain a reasonable return on investment
5. Power grid must meet all load conditions, all the time 
6. Account for variations in demand daily, weekends, seasonal
7. Account for planned and unplanned asset outages
8. Account for adverse weather, earthquakes, fire, flood, wind, tsunami
9. Account for blackouts and brownouts
10. Account for fuel supply issues including disruptions (coal, natural gas, etc)
11. Account for available space (if any) on railroads for coal imports from other states
12. Account for growth in demand, if any
13. Account for environmental impacts - wildlife, air, water, soil, radiation, noise, explosion, etc
14. Account for transmission and distribution systems
15. Account for customers' ability to pay - poor, elderly, etc
16. Account for power attributes as attracting or deterring commerce and industry
17. Pricing must also pay utilities for fuel and other operating costs
18. Account for critical services - hospitals, life-support systems at residences, etc
19. Account for cooling water, river, lake, ocean, or air-cooling, mixed-cooling
20. Account for customers' installation of solar on property, and wind; will you buy power from individuals?
21. Account for other states with offers to sell power to California, yes, no, what conditions
22. Account for large industry or commercial sites that self-generate, will you be their backup?
23. Account for large industry or commercial sites that produce excess - will you buy?
24. Account for location, siting, of generating assets, and environmental justice issues
25. Account for location and siting of transmission assets, distribution assets
26. Will you cooperate in a regional grid, or a very large regional grid?
27. For experimental technologies that need research and development - will you fund this?  How?
28. How will you determine acceptable pollution emissions to air, water, soil, and via radiation?
29. What levels of animal, bird, and fish deaths will you accept and how to justify these?
30. What level of grid reliability will you deem acceptable, and how to justify this? 99% or higher?
31. How will you ensure that grid reliability is uniform across all areas, so no group is discriminated against?
32. How will you price the power sales, by residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, or other method?
33. Will you have a flat rate, or a tiered pricing system, and why?
34. Will you encourage efficiency in use, or profligacy, or be neutral, and why?
35. How will you address energy profligacy by a rich few, and the increased generation assets that requires?
36. If nuclear is part of your assets, who pays for a nuclear disaster and related deaths? Property damage?
37. How will you bring electricity to a very small user in remote areas?  Not at all?  
38. Will you have above-ground or in-ground distribution, where and why?
39. Will you allow distributed generation, if so, at what size and where? 
40. How will you address the disparity in use vs location in California, with coastal areas
having mild summers and winters thus low usage, but inland areas
. having hot summers and cold winters thus much higher usage? 
41. For gas-fired peaker plants, if you have those, how will you regulate their use?
42. For large hydroelectric plants, if you have those, how will you decide where to put them?
43. How will you decide when to retire an asset, either generation, transmission, or distribution systems? 
44. On a daily and hourly basis, how will you choose which generating assets to run, which to order to stand by, and which to hold in reserve? 

45. How will you ensure complete compliance with all Federal Laws and regulatory agencies, including but not limited to FERC, Nuclear Regulatory Agency, PURPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, various national energy policy acts, and state agency regulations such as California Energy Commission, California Coastal Commission, California Public Utility Commission, California Independent System Operator, California State Water Resources Control Board, and California Air Resources Board? 

Have I any experience in any of these issues?  Absolutely, but just a bit.  My engineering experience includes economic justification and preliminary design of a CCGT plant that was installed and is still running near Houston, Texas at a large chemical plant.   I also performed a make-or-buy analysis many times, one notable example was for nuclear power to a large refinery using a small reactor.  Also, I did an economic justification with technology selection, and sizing for a large hydroelectric project overseas.  I had the nuclear power course in undergraduate school for nuclear chemistry, physics, reactor design, and remainder-of-plant design for multiple types of reactors.   I had a full guided tour of a large nuclear reactor in Perry, Ohio with a group of fellow engineers.  I was assigned to analyze completely the fiasco of the South Texas Nuclear Plant design and construction process, then report on the entire matter to my employer.  I have evaluated and made recommendations to several clients on their make-or-buy decisions for both electricity and steam in their large refineries and process plants.   As an attorney, I don't discuss my clients or my cases.  It is sufficient to say that I am quite familiar with many of the legal requirements for grid-scale electrical systems.  

With California presently in a crisis summer, with high loads on the grid and inadequate natural gas supplies due to the Aliso Canyon storage facility problems, it is not surprising that the grid is a popular subject.   Everyone seems to know what California should do.  It is easy to rant.   I wonder how many, if any, could provide answers to any of the issues above.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved