Interesting side problem on solar photovoltaic power systems in Hawaii.

[230RN]

The upshot is that if there are enough private photovoltaic generating plants feeding into the grid, the power company has to drop their own generating capacity or scrabble around switching substations and the like --bearing in mind that the Hawaiian grid is rather isolated, and power can't be just pumped into the rest of the nation's grid.

The problem is that all would be fine until clouds pass over a high-density area of photovoltaic generation, then suddenly the private contribution to the grid from that area drops down and the power company would have to scrabble to bring up more generating capacity.  You know, quickly shovel more coal into the boilers and run around throwing big-assed knife switches on and off sort of thing.

Soooo, if you are going to install a photovoltaic system in certain areas, they now have to do an expensive  study to essentially find out how it will affect the grid if clouds come over. Or maybe ash clouds from the volcanos, too, I suspect.  The cost of the study is borne by the folks who want to install photovoltaics.

One person remarked that the cost of these studies is "the single largest impediment we face in our mission to be a catalyst in the state's transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy,"

http://www.staradvertiser.com/business/20110724_Sun_screening.html

A growing number of Hawaiian Electric Co. customers who want to install electricity-generating solar panels on their homes and businesses are being forced to scrap their plans because they are located in areas where high penetration of existing photovoltaic systems means they could be required to pay for an expensive study before connecting to the grid.

(Source captured from 2ahawaii.com, the Hawaiian Gun site.)

Terry, 230RN

[zahc]

This is just one of the many growing pains facing an increasingly diverse power generation system and grid. Many have noted that the non-steady nature of wind and solar power can quickly swamp their contribution to the grid as a whole because the "real" power plants cannot afford to spool down in response to the new supply, since it cannot be depended on because of clouds, non-windy weather, etc. This causes the real contribution of an N MW solar array to effectively be less than N MW by a significant factor.

Another issue is the supposed 'smart grid' and electric cars. With a completely unregulated power grid, demand is uncontrolled, but it does obey well-studied trends. Once we have a fleet of electric cars, which all decide to switch their chargers on at the beginning of "off peak" hours, not only are the off-peak hours quickly going to become on-peak hours, but the grid may have to deal with spikes in demand that have been unheard of as long as devices have been controlled by relatively fickle and individual humans. Anyone who deals with load-balancing of network/server hardware can imagine some of the challenges coming. 

[Tallpine]

the power company would have to scrabble to bring up more generating capacity

That could spell T-R-O-U-B-L-E

[Scout26]

I know a guy who's an engineer for ComEd.  Part of his job is incorporating wind turbines into the grid.  He says he pulls his hair out because, some days, there's no wind and they ain't turning, other days there's too much wind and they ain't turning, some days there's only a little breeze and they are only putting out a a fraction of their rated power and then there a the good days when they are putting out all the power they can (called Goldilocks Days), but they wildly vary as to how much power they put out through the day.  They can't depend on it to supply consistent amounts of power (Like Coal or Nuke Plants).

He calls it an exercise in frustration and futility, but it's job security. 

[P5 Guy]

I was never able to get a straight answer when Charlie Crist and BHO did the dance in Florida.
How many acres per kilowatt hour generated? And how does that compare to a fuel generation plant?

[birdman]

Solar sucks, and always will.

Let's put it this way, if you covered AZ, NM, part of CA, west Texas, and southern Utah, you would generate enough energy for the US (well, current usage)...at a cost of close to $10-15 trillion dollars.

Oh, and since you need power at night, pumped storage is the only conceivable method for that large of storage, which would involve filling and draining a lake mead size reservoir (completely) with roughly 500 hydro power stations the size of Hoover dam--at an additional cost of $5-10 trillion dollars.

Correspondingly, the same overall power generation could be done with roughly 1000 nuke plants, which would cost roughly $5-10 trillion...or 2-3x less.

Most importantly, those 1000 plants, with NRC mandated 400m exclusion zones, would take up an area only <20 miles on a side...or roughly 1/3rd the size of rhode island (or 1/4 the size of the Nevada test site...hmmm....)

So which would you rather have...power that is 3x as expensive and covers a substantial fraction of CONUS, or power that fits in an area smaller than 1/3rd of an already existing test site and is much cheaper?

Again, solar sucks, and wimd is worse.  Every (and I mean EVERY) wind installation ever built has required construction or addition of a similar nameplate capacity gas turbine system for load stability, and EVERY wind system, is 5-10x more expensive in life cycle cost than any other form of power--the only reason it is installed at all is subsidies (either direct or through tax breaks)--so basically, your tax dollars at work.

[MillCreek]

We are seeing an increasing number of wind installations along ridgelines in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

[roo_ster]

We are seeing an increasing number of wind installations along ridgelines in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

Spotted Owl Pate.

[birdman]

We are seeing an increasing number of wind installations along ridgelines in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

Yup, at an average effectiveness of 20-40% (average power to nameplate rating) with a high/low of 100-0% of nameplate, thus requiring the use of rapid load-following generation (gas turbine) requirement equal to the nameplate rating of the wind turbines--that way, when the wind power is zero, the gas turbines are at 100%, and visa-versa.  This is why the subsidies for wind are so high--in order to be economical (to the utility) the combined cost of wind system and either new gas turbines or purchase of power from other utilities must be equal to the cost of conventional base-load power systems.

This is why people claim wind power is so cheap, they take the wind system cost (at name-plate rating) minus subsidies and divide by the rating--neglecting the actual cost (wind + backup) and glossing over the fact that typical subsidies for wind offset 50-75% of the system cost!  

Right now, post subsidy effective wind-power costs are about $3-5/watt of equivalent base-load power, about the same (within 20%) as truly clean coal (sequestration), gas turbines, or nuclear.  So, one could power the whole US with $5-10 trillion in wind...but it would require a government subsidy of $10-15 trillion to do it (so, feel like dedicating the entire discretionary federal budget to wind subsidies every year for a decade?)

Ironically the only power source that would be cheaper if the Feds stopped "helping" would be nuclear...all the other green sources would skyrocket in price.

By the way, with a 5-7% APR on a 30-yr note, nuclear power is profitable at current plant and electricity prices--and there is sufficient capital to begin construction at a rate of 100/hr (and believe me, I know plenty of major investors who want to start sinking billions into nuclear).  With a 5-10th completion time, going all-in (basically, allowing the market to actually invest by allowing new plants to be built--remove the govt handcuffs preventing licensing) on nuclear would result in compete energy independence in less than 20 years, turn us into a net energy exporter (to the tune of $300-500 billion/yr net export, which would highly revalue the dollar, reducing both inflation, and driving down the price of imported goods, further inpmproving the economy and standard of living) and eliminate fully 20-25% of global co2 emissions.

And it doesn't require ONE FREAKIN DIME of govt money--just them getting out of the way.

[Fitz]

We should probably just tax the rich to pay for clean energy...












 

[birdman]

We should probably just tax the rich to pay for clean energy...
 

Probably?!  We already do!  And if by rich you mean the 50% of the country that actually pays taxes.

[Fitz]

Probably?!  We already do!  And if by rich you mean the 50% of the country that actually pays taxes.

By rich I mean everyone with more than me.

[birdman]

By rich I mean everyone with more than me.

Ah. Then I think there should be a surtax on all income equal to:
Attractiveness of spouse (1 to 10) x (your age minus spouses age) - (your age minus 30) %

After all, it's only "fair"...  

[MillCreek]

^^^^ Hey, I think this means I get a refund.  Where do I sign up?

[birdman]

^^^^ Hey, I think this means I get a refund.  Where do I sign up?

Talk to fitz, I think he owes a ton in back taxes now.

[230RN]

"And it doesn't require ONE FREAKIN DIME of govt money--just them getting out of the way."

Three cheers for birdman!

(Hip, hip, hooray!) * 3

[drewtam]

Hawaii has mountains and plenty of water. They should use mountain pumped energy storage for load levelling.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

[birdman]

Hawaii has mountains and plenty of water. They should use mountain pumped energy storage for load levelling.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

Actually, given the land area in Hawaii consistently above clouds (thats why there are observatories there), they do have decent solar opportunities...and you are correct about the pumped storage.  A few 10's of square km of solar panels, combined with their low latitude, high altitude, and relatively low power needs (limited heavy industry), they are a good example of where it could work.

[Scout26]

Dammit Birdman, stop making sense. 

[Hawkmoon]

We are seeing an increasing number of wind installations along ridgelines in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

There are two VERY large wind farms under construction in Chile right now. But there are located right along the coastal highway and the wind direction, force and velocity is a lot more consistent there than probably anywhere in CONUS.

[Fitz]

Ah. Then I think there should be a surtax on all income equal to:
Attractiveness of spouse (1 to 10) x (your age minus spouses age) - (your age minus 30) %

After all, it's only "fair"...  

Hmmm... 10 * 7 - -2   

so.... 72 percent income tax on me?


LAWL


Well, i'm screwed. i should go on welfare and crank out a few more kids!

[birdman]

Hmmm... 10 * 7 - -2   

so.... 72 percent income tax on me?


LAWL


Well, i'm screwed. i should go on welfare and crank out a few more kids!

Yup, welcome to the Carter years (top marginal rate was 70%).  Having a bunch of kids would reduce your taxes though, ain't a woman alive that can punch out and raise a litter and remain hot.

As an interesting note, tax revenues as a fraction of GDP averaged just 1.5% lower after a cut of marginal rates from 70 to 28%...

[AJ Dual]

Actually, given the land area in Hawaii consistently above clouds (thats why there are observatories there), they do have decent solar opportunities...and you are correct about the pumped storage.  A few 10's of square km of solar panels, combined with their low latitude, high altitude, and relatively low power needs (limited heavy industry), they are a good example of where it could work.

And the other good part about being above the clouds is that when you factor in the odds of a solar farm being damaged/destroyed by a tornado, wind-storm, flood, or hail before it recoups it's energy costs to make the panel, much less the financial investment, (with or without subsidy) the picture is even more grim.

I guess there's always hope for solar. If some genius comes out with a flexible panel that has 50% conversion efficiency, and costs somewhere between $.80-$1.20 sq/ft...

Okay. I'm going to hold my breath. Later...

[birdman]

And the other good part about being above the clouds is that when you factor in the odds of a solar farm being damaged/destroyed by a tornado, wind-storm, flood, or hail before it recoups it's energy costs to make the panel, much less the financial investment, (with or without subsidy) the picture is even more grim.

I guess there's always hope for solar. If some genius comes out with a flexible panel that has 50% conversion efficiency, and costs somewhere between $.80-$1.20 sq/ft...

Okay. I'm going to hold my breath. Later...

I would suggest not holding your breath.  In 30-40 years of very costly development, array efficient for the most expensive arrays ($10-100/W peak) has barely doubled (~17-20% for single crystal silicon to ~35-40% for modern improved triple junction), array efficiencies typically have increased less than 1-2% (relative, 0.5% absolute) per year, so figure another 10-20 years to hit 50% in operation.  Costs per watt delivered have dropped from $100/W to $1-5/W (very large quantity thin film low efficiency arrays) in the same time period.  Your $1/sqft at 50% equates to roughly $0.02/W.  Given the relative (and remember, we have thrown billions at it...more than we throw at advanced nuclear) slow progress, it would likely take 20yrs to get prices in that neighborhood.  Now, breakthroughs could reduce that to 10-15yrs (if they occur), but that means given storage costs, and other lifecycle costs, even then, it would be (no subsidy) as costly as nuclear is now, and only reduce the area needs by 50% (so "just" AZ and NM, of course, in that time frame, power needs will have nearly doubled, so you are back to where you started).

My point still is there is only one power source that can be scaled to our current and future needs, in the timeframes required, and at the costs needed to prevent our energy infrastructure from bankrupting the country, and that is nuclear...and it exists at the tech level needed TODAY.  With current mixed oxide fuels (which are used due to government prevention) we have already mined enough fuels to power the country for 10-20 years...and there are CURRENT reserves (I.e. At current prices) to last 100's...again government interference.

Example, France generates roughly the same amount of nuclear power as we do, and they don't have a waste "problem"--all of theirs is stored on a single floor, of a relatively small building--why? Because they reprocess!  Of course we don't, because Carter banned it "to set an example" and "prevent nuclear proliferation"--specifically, to prevent India, Pakistan, north Korea, and Iran from developing nuclear weapons...wonder how that worked out.

Again, get the government out of the way, and I'll change the face of our energy future in less than a decade.

[MechAg94]

By rich I mean everyone with more than me.

Yeah, that is what every one things until Democrats tell them they are rich and will be taxed.