Bigger Wind Turbines Onshore and Offshore in 2019

Subtitle: Wind Has Won

Two major events in both offshore and onshore wind occurred in 2019; both have enormous (some would say HUUUGE) implications for renewable energy worldwide.  The first event is the installation of the largest-ever offshore wind turbine generator (WTG), the GE-built Haliade 12X in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.  Yes, it is an onshore installation, not offshore, but that is for ease of access during testing and verification purposes.   The 12X has a nominal output of 12 MW, and a claimed annual capacity factor of 63 percent.   The economics of the 12 MW WTG are very favorable; such that a sales price of 5 cents US per kWh allows a nice return on the investment.   A major wind project offshore in EU has announced they will use the 12 MW turbines.   see link for details of the GE Haliade 12X. 

Meanwhile, GE has done it again.  This time in the onshore industry, where a major limit to increased size and better economics for WTG has been the inability to transport longer blades from manufacturer to the wind turbine site.   The US Department of Energy recently sent out a call for ideas to solve the transportation problem.   GE has since (March, 2019) announced their 5 MW WTG, the Cypress model, that has blades fabricated in two parts for ease of shipping.  At the site, the two parts are joined for installation and operation.   This also is huge for onshore WTG, since the almost double output brings down the sales price of electricity.   Adequate returns are provided at present with 4.3 cents per kWh from the 2.5-3 MW size WTG.  The 5 MW Cypress WTG will allow an adequate return at something below the 4.3 cents, most likely in the 2.5-3 cents per kWh range.   see link for details of the Cypress 5 MW. 

We can expect that many older WTG projects with 1 MW size and smaller will soon upgrade to the 5 MW WTG.  The repowering projects have excellent economics because the infrastructure is mostly in place.   Bigger turbines reach up higher into better wind, and provide a greater annual capacity. 

As I have said often before, wind has won.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 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  

Offshore Wind Sells Power at €44/MWh

Subtitle:  Wind Industry Will Fly from here on. 

The lowest price, so far, for offshore wind sales may just be the €44/ MWh that was announced this week.  The project, offshore Dunkirk, France, will be 600 MW and employ wind turbines with 12-13 MW capacity each.  Those are the largest at this point in time.   
see link to article describing the project. 

In US currency, that is approximately 5 cents per kWh delivered.   As stated before on SLB, wind has won. 

Future projects will most likely, almost assuredly, use the largest wind turbines available since the economics are overwhelmingly favorable.  They cost less to install per MW, and have better output via higher capacity factors.  Also, there are fewer of the larger turbines, so maintenance costs are lower.  

This is beyond the turning point the industry has long sought:  sales price of 10 cents per kWh.  

From here on, the investments will be heavy into offshore wind.   The prospects for onshore wind are more limited, since a large hurdle is transporting blades to the installation site.  The very large turbine blades for 12 MW wind turbines simply cannot pass under the various bridges.  Of course, the open ocean has no such restrictions.  

It's a good day for the renewable energy industry.  

Sandia National Lab, 50 MW offshore wind turbine concept
Blades are downwind of tower, blades flex in very high winds
to allow continued operation. 

Update: 6-23-19;  The offshore wind turbines are especially attractive in Europe, where the grid operators typically reduce natural gas-fired power plants as the wind power increases.  That is a savings of very expensive LNG that is vaporized to provide fuel to the power plants.  With LNG selling at $8 to $10 per million Btu, the electric customers should (and perhaps will) see a reduction in electric bills. 

The future is very bright for offshore wind in many areas of the world.  Northern Europe, US East Coast, US West Coast, and the East Coast of Asia are all developing wind projects offshore.   

Floating Spar mooring system, artist's concept
for Hywind, Scotland offshore wind farm
credit: Statoil ASA Environmental Statement

The largest turbines are not yet here, as SLB reported earlier, Sandia National Labs has a design for a 50 MW wind turbine, with flexible blades that bend with the strongest winds.   see link to SLB article, and see link to Sandia publication on the Segmented Ultralight Morphing Rotor.  (see photo at right)

The economics of such a wind turbine will be very attractive.   However, there are engineering issues to resolve with a large weight balanced at the top of a long and slender tower.   I suspect the answer will be, at least in part, a tower that is designed to sway in the wind, like a palm tree.

Another very good possibility is to employ the floating spar mooring technology as the Hywind project in Scotland uses.   The floating spars also sway in the strongest winds.  See this link for the SLB article on the Hywind floating spar wind farm.   -- end update

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 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  

Offshore Wind for Taiwan

Subtitle:  Offshore Wind Reaches Lift-Off Point of 10 cents

"Project costs of the two offshore wind farms (German company) wpd will build in Taiwan amount to EUR 4 billion, according to the latest news from the company. . ."  see link 

Offshore Wind Turbine (center)
with jack-up ship performing installation (at right)

This is interesting because the project cost (€4 billion) and size (1,058 MW installed) give an electricity sales price of US 8-12 cents per kWh, depending on the capacity factor, CF, (actual divided by maximum output).  At 50 percent CF, and a 10 year simple payout, 10 cents per kWh sold is required.   Fifty percent CF is easily achieved offshore, in the strong and steady winds that exist offshore.  

That 10 cent price meets the goal stated at the OTC wind sessions a few weeks ago.   Ten cents is the lift-off point at which offshore wind projects need no subsidy and are built as fast as the manufacturers can produce the components.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2018 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  

US Renewables Output Exceeds Nuclear Plant Output

Subtitle:  Renewables Output Grows While Nuclear Slows

The US electrical grid is going through massive changes as several things happen.  This article shows EIA data for the past few years, with combined monthly renewable energy (electricity) output exceeding the combined output of all the nuclear plants in the US. 

source:  EIA, "Today In Energy" website

The data and chart are from US Energy Information Agency, EIA, covering the years 1980 through first half 2017.  see link

The significance of this chart is how much wind energy (the green area of the chart) has grown since approximately 2008.  In only just under 10 years (2008-2017 inclusive), wind has grown from not visibly noticeable on the chart to approximately one-half the total renewable energy generated in the US.  Many authoritative sources have been saying this for years, of course.  There are, though, many nay-sayers who simply cannot fathom how airplane wings twirling in the wind can produce electrical power into a grid.  And yet, the chart above shows this clearly.   The amount at the far right-hand part of the chart shows approximately 30 billion kWh for the month, just for wind energy.    That is approximately the same output as all the hydroelectric plants produced.  The hydroelectric plants are having a banner year, with the El Nino rains placing an above-average amount of water in the combined reservoirs that feed the hydroelectric plants.  

Meanwhile, the other big trend in the US shows up as a tiny step-change in 2012 in the top line, the line for nuclear plant output.  That downward blip represents the closing of the SONGS nuclear plant in California, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.  SONGS had a major leak in the new steam generators they purchased and installed, and elected to shut down the plant rather than investigate the cause of the leaks and report on that cause to the NRC.  The NRC determined that the leaks were from an unknown cause, not seen in all the hundreds of reactor-years in more than 400 nuclear plants world-wide.  

Now that SONGS is shut down, more nuclear plants are also shutting down but for slightly different reasons.  The main reason is they are losing money with each month they operate.  The Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska shut down for exactly that reason at the end of 2016.  More nuclear plants have disclosed they are losing money at a horrendous rate and will also close if they do not receive adequate subsidies from the state governments.   The nuclear plant fleet in the US is rapidly approaching an average age of 40 years.  Almost every nuclear power plant in the US has already closed by the age of 40 years from startup. 

The next decade in the US will no doubt see at least one-half of the nuclear plants shut down.  With 99 still running, that is approximately 50 shutdowns.  

Meanwhile, wind turbines are being built in record numbers and enjoying profitability with power sales prices below 5 cents per kWh.  The design improvements, larger sizes, and taller support towers all combine to make wind energy extremely efficient and economic.  

Thus, when such a graph is created again in 5 years, and 10 years from now, the top line for nuclear power will be substantially lower.  I expect that by 2027, nuclear output per month will be no more than half that of today, or 32 billion kWh per month.   In sharp contrast, wind energy output will likely be 70 billion kWh per month or more.   At that rate of output, 70 billion kWh per month, wind energy would represent only 20 percent of the total US electricity production.  That, 20 percent, is well below the level that any grid stability problems are predicted to occur.  

The long-term business opportunity in the US lies in decommissioning nuclear plants, with an average of 5 per year shutting down over the next decade.   Another long-term opportunity is in the construction and installation of large wind turbines.  The next generation of wind turbines will be the 4 MW, 6 MW, and 8 MW per turbine output.  

A famous singer said it well:  "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind."

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  

Diablo Canyon Nuclear - Power Replacement via Solar

Subtitle: Replacing Nuclear with Solar also Requires Storage

An interesting question was posed to me on Dr. Curry's post recently at her blog Climate Etc. The question and my answer are shown below, but first a bit of background. 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, via Google Maps 2016.
Arrow idicates twin reactors.   Pacific Ocean to the bottom right. 

California has but two nuclear power reactors left running, both at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant near Morro Bay, right on the Pacific Ocean shore.  The 40-year operating license for each reactor expires in a few years, and PG&E announced it will not seek a 20 year license extension but will shut them down in 2024 and 2025, respectively.   Also, PG&E announced it would compensate for that power by a mix of renewable energy, conservation, and grid storage.  My June, 2016 article on this on SLB is at this link.   The increased renewable energy likely poses several issues for the grid operator.   

A commenter on Dr. Curry's post put the following question to me:

“. . .does California have enough regulatory authority to demand PG&E replace Diablo Canyon only with the renewables and with energy conservation measures; and further, to directly and explicitly prevent PG&E from placing greater reliance on natural gas for servicing California’s electricity demand?”

The short answer is probably Not. The long answer is more complex.

Renewables generation in California are regulated under multiple regulations, including (but not limited to) the RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard). see link to   http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RPS_Homepage/

The law requires PG&E (and other Public Owned Utilities) to procure 33 percent of their power sold in 2020 from renewable sources. PG&E is reported to already have under contract 43 percent renewables for 2020.

The next milestone for RPS is 50 percent by 2030. Clearly, PG&E must find a source of more renewable energy to meet the 50 percent requirement. With Diablo Canyon nuclear to close the reactors in 2024 and 2025, that gives PG&E an opportunity to obtain approximately 2,200 MW of power from renewable sources. However, RPS does not work on installed capacity, it requires kWh delivered to be from renewables.

As most everyone knows (and detractors cannot stop shouting it), wind and solar renewable power do not run 24/7, they have approximately 25 percent annual capacity factor in California. Thus, about 8,800 MW of either wind, solar, or both, would be required to replace the retired nuclear output. However, installing that much renewables would likely create grid issues, and put PG&E in the 60-percent range for RPS.

The state does not have very much, if any, untapped wind resources left, so the new installations will be solar. The economics of solar thermal are not as good as solar PV, therefore the new installations will be solar PV.

The main point is that solar PV must have some form of backup due to intermittency with sunshine. Those aspects are well known, from night, to clouds in daytime, to seasonal variation, to solar eclipses (a big one is coming in August 2017), and to normal outages for maintenance.

The usual backup in California is natural gas-fired plants that use combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) technology. Indeed, CA law requires a minimum efficiency for fossil power plants that essentially dictates that only CCGT can be built. Therefore, it is safe to conclude at this time that PG&E will very likely build, or purchase power from, approximately 8 to 10 GW of new solar PV in the next 7 to 8 years. That will also require the installation of some amount of gas-fired CCGT.

The situation would change if and when grid-scale batteries (or other storage) are sufficiently economic to be installed for baseload power. The economics for batteries are already good for peaker power plants. Whether the battery installed cost declines sufficiently by 2022, when investment decisions must be made, of course is not yet known.

I do not always agree with what Planning Engineer writes, but on one thing we do agree: a large amount of solar power on a grid creates the problematic Duck Curve. California is already managing very well with a substantial Duck Curve, with recent numbers showing thermal generation in mid-day at 11 GW and 26 GW at the peak 8 hours later (data from 4/29/2017).

However, if an additional 8 to 10 GW of solar generation is installed, the grid would have thermal generation of 2 to 3 GW in mid-day, then must produce 26 GW only 8 hours later. That is a problem for the grid planners and operators. It remains to be seen how all this will play out.

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  

Offshore Wind Power Comparison - 1991 to 2016

Subtitle:  Modern Offshore Wind Power Costs Less Than Half of First Project

UPDATE 2,  5/4/2017:   "The wind farm’s first Senvion 6.2-M126 wind turbine started producing electricity and feeding it to the mainland grid on Friday, 31 March." -- via OffshoreWind.Biz  (end update 2)

photo via Nordsee One GmbH

A recent article on WUWT continues the theme there of anti-renewables, this time with an article that purports to compare the first offshore wind project, now in decommissioning, to an average of current projects.   I left a comment, shown below, to compare apples to apples, the first project to the best of today.   By definition, the first project was the best of its time. 

"For Captain T. A. “Ike” Kiefer, if I may. 

A very misleading analysis above.  To compare the first offshore project, Vindeby, to an average of current projects misses the mark.   A better comparison would be for the first project, by definition the best at the time, to one of the best projects by today's technology - all located in the same general area.    I have done so below.   The result is that today's best project delivers power at less than half that of the Vindeby project. (Vindeby = 100, Nordsee One = 42) 

The Nordsee One offshore wind project is under construction and has ample information published by which to make the comparison.   The project, off the coast of Germany, has 332 MW gross capacity with 54 turbines of 6.1 MW each.   Published cost data shows US$978 million (2015) for a cost-per-kW of $2945.  Annual capacity factor is expected to be 41.5  percent, based on the published anticipated production of 1.2 million MWh annually.  Nordsee One website is at this link. 


Plant:...............Nordsee One............Vindeby
Year.......................2017.......................1991
MW ...................... 332.......................4.95
N Turbines...............54..........................11
Turbine size, MW.....6.1.........................0.45
Cap Cost (million)..$978........................$23
Cost/kW.................2945.......................4645
Capacity Factor......41.5.......................22
MWh/y delivered....1.2.....................0.0095   (millions)
Sales price for 10-year payout  - 10 percent approximate Return on Investment
..... $/MWh.............81.........................241
O&M $/MWh..........35...........................35
Total sales price
.......$/MWh...........116........................276

Ratio, modern to old:   (116/276) = 0.42

This result is not surprising, given the known improvements in economy of scale, higher hub heights, much better capacity factors, and continued reduction in both installed costs per kW, and Operations plus Maintenance.  

The future is bright for offshore wind, with even larger turbines, higher hub heights, and improved capacity factors.  See "Enormous Blades for Offshore Energy," by Sandia National Laboratory.  see link 

UPDATE - 4/1/2017:  (not an April Fools' joke)  -  further research into offshore wind shows that O&M for the first 5 years of operation is included in the turbine sales price.   Therefore, a better comparison of the Vindeby and Nordsee One plants is 81/241 for 34 percent ratio of modern to oldest performance.  --  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  

Renewable Energy - Physics vs Economics

Subtitle: The Physics is Inescapable - But Economics Matters Most

A question posed on WUWT today, "Why is it that people who shout “It’s simple physics” about global warming immediately shout “It doesn’t matter about the physics” when it comes to renewable energy?"

My reply:

The physics always matters, it cannot be overcome. However, renewable energy is all about the economics, which are improving rapidly year over year. Wind power in the US is now profitable at US $0.043 per kWh, of which $0.02 is paid by the utility, and $0.023 is by the government as a tax credit. Note: the wind power producer must have profits from somewhere to take advantage of the tax credit. The proof of this (profitability) is the rapid growth of wind power installations in the US, both onshore and now offshore.

Solar PV at grid-scale is not far behind.

From the US Dept of Energy, “2015 Wind Technologies Market Report”: link is here.  

o Installed cost in the windy Great Plains is $1,640 / kW, continuing the downward trend of the past several years.

o Also, wind power is sold at very low prices under a Purchase Power Agreement, for $20 / MWh. The federal tax credit continues at $23 per MWh.

o Finally, capacity factors for 2015 are higher than ever, at 41.2 percent among projects built in 2014.

More about renewable economics: California residential prices have not increased due to renewable power installations and production. Wind is a minor player in California, with almost all the available sites already built out. Solar PV has substantial future growth potential.

Installed generating capacity in California is about 70,000 MW, of which 40 percent is renewable (24 percent solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and 12 percent large hydroelectric). We don’t have grid instabilities, nor blackouts, nor huge price increases from renewables. On an annual basis, total kWh supplied to the grid by renewables in 2016 was approximately 27 percent (excluding large hydroelectric). Large hydroelectric supplied approximately 5-6 percent in a drought year. In average rainfall years, large hydroelectric contributes 15 percent.

Now that the California drought is over, 2017 is expected to have 45 percent combined renewables plus large hydroelectric power (approximately 30 percent solar, wind, etc, and 15 percent large hydroelectric.)

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 

Nuclear Plants Unreliable In A Hurricane - St. Lucie Shut Down

Subtitle:  St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unreliable in a Hurricane

The recent flap in Australia that saw the state of South Australia suffer a grid blackout due to high winds prompted a storm of controversy over whether or not wind power, a renewable energy source, was to blame.   Of course, many of the anti-renewable crowd advocated for more nuclear power plants, saying they are reliable where wind power is not.    The irony is that here, half a world away in Florida, hurricane Matthew forced the St. Lucie nuclear power plant to shut down.   The story was given as: 

"St. Lucie Power Plant shut down because of Hurricane Matthew" --  see link to TCPalm.com story 10/7/2016. 

From the article: "Federal rules require nuclear plants to be shut down at least one hour before hurricane winds hit the site, spokesman Peter Robbins said. FPL closed the Hutchinson Island plant at 11:15 a.m. and will reopen it after the category 4 storm is over. Its reopening might be delayed if access roads are blocked because rules require an evacuation route for a power plant to remain open, he said."   (note: FPL is Florida Power and Light; the St. Lucie nuclear plant is located on Hutchinson Island just south of Vero Beach, Florida)

For background, Hurricane Matthew was a category 4 that traveled northward as it remained offshore but brushed the entire eastern seaboard of Florida from October 5 through October 8, 2016.  Hurricane winds are sustained wind of 75 miles per hour or greater.   Wind speeds reported by the National Weather Service at Vero Beach, just 10 miles north of the St. Lucie nuclear plant, showed maximum sustained winds of 49 miles per hour at 3:53 a.m. on October 7, 2016.  Winds gradually increased to that point, then decreased steadily after.  Wind gusts were higher, as expected, with the highest at 74 miles per hour. 

It is also noteworthy that Florida reported more than 1 million customers lost power due to hurricane Matthew's winds.   Those were most likely the low-voltage lines, and not the high-voltage backbone of the grid.   This is crucial because an offline nuclear power plant consumes a great deal of electricity to run cooling systems and other critical systems to prevent a meltdown.   St. Lucie also has, by law, backup generation capability to supply power for a few hours when the grid cannot.  

The controversy over wind power continues.    It is clear, though, that nuclear power plants are not quite as reliable as the nuclear cheerleaders claim.    In this case, no one could know if Hurricane Matthew would veer westward and bring 74-mph and greater winds across St. Lucie nuclear plant.   As it turned out, no hurricane winds hit the nuclear plant.   Still, shutting it down as a precaution was the correct thing to do.   Nuclear plants pose a sufficient danger that it is much better to shut one down in a calm and orderly manner than to have a crash shutdown in the midst of a hurricane.  

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

Renewable Energy Saves California from Grid Blackouts

Subtitle: Record-Setting Solar Power Reduces Natural Gas Demand

The peak summer heat is now ended in Southern California, indeed, a winter storm warning was issued for the central Sierra Nevada mountains.  One short and fairly mild heat wave occurred last weekend, with temperatures measured at Los Angeles (USC Campus)  reaching 104 degrees F for one day.  (see adjacent Figure 1).   The orange oval shows the period in which heat waves typically occur, this year only twice did temperatures break 100 degrees F.   The major conclusion is that zero blackouts occurred, because renewable power from solar PV, solar thermal, and wind turbines produced electricity at rates up to 10,000 MW throughout the summer. 

Figure 1  -  2016 year-to-date temperatures
at Los Angeles, California

As is well-known, officials have concern that grid instabilities or blackouts would occur this summer during heat waves, because the natural gas storage supply is much reduced due to the Aliso Canyon storage facility being out of operation.  

However, solar power and wind power need no natural gas, and provided power routinely through the summer.   Solar PV actually broke records for power production.    

The California grid has many efficient, combined-cycle gas turbine power plants with quick response capability to adjust their output when solar or wind output changes suddenly.    The state also imports some power from adjacent states, notably nuclear power from Arizona, hydroelectric from Nevada (Hoover Dam), and both wind and hydroelectric from Washington.    It is notable that long-distance transmission lines are required to ship the power into California.  It is also noteworthy that the adjacent states have surplus power to sell to California and do so profitably. 

Now that Fall and Winter are here or looming, the gas shortage continues due to Aliso Canyon's problems.   However, wind power increases in those seasons, which offsets the declining solar power production.    Next year will have even more solar power production as California installs even more PV power plants.   The state's renewable energy plan requires approximately 3,000 MW of renewables installed each year.  Almost all of that will be solar PV, since wind locations are essentially built out, and solar thermal has much worse economics. 

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

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.

Improved Solar Cell with Doubled Efficiency

It seems the breakthroughs just keep coming on the energy front, with this week's announcement "Columbia Chemists Find Key to Manufacturing More Efficient Solar Cells".  Columbia Professor of Chemistry Xiaoyang Zhu and his team developed a solar cell using Hybrid Organic Inorganic Perovskites (HOIPs). Their results were reported in the prestigious journal Science.  see link. 

The HOIP cell has 22 percent efficiency, but scientists see much higher possibilities with this material.  Efficiencies in the mid-40 percent range are expected. 

The material also has a lower cost of production compared to silicon wafers. 

This, too, is one to watch. 

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

New Solar Power Record in California 2 Sept 2016

Yet another record for grid-scale solar power production yesterday in California. 

photo courtesy of NREL
(click to enlarge)

Per records from CAISO, grid-scale solar power produced 8,442 MW at 13:00 hours, and 8,447 MW at 14:00 hours.

The breakdown for 13:00 hours was as follows:

PV .......... 7,742 MW 
Thermal ....  702

And at 14:00 hours

PV .......... 7,740 MW 

Thermal ....  707

see link to CAISO data for 2 September, 2016.


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

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