95% of our grid electricity from wind at market prices near fossil fuels?
Believe it 19
-
Posted 12:12 PM on 18 Dec 2006
by Gar Lipow -
Posted in
Read More About
Gar Lipow, a long time environmental activist and journalist with a strong technical background has spent years immersed in the subject of efficiency and renewable energy. He has written extensively on the economics of solving the global warming, and why pricing externalities (though important) cannot be the main driver of such solutions.
His on-line reference book compiling information on technology available today, “No Hair Shirt Solutions to Global Warming”, is available at http://www.nohairshirts.com.
His articles on the economics and politics of solving the climate crisis have been published in Z magazine and a number of small journals.
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Engineer Posted 4:53 am
25 Dec 2006
Public utilities usually have no problem releasing data, privates could probably be convinced if the results were only released in aggregated form that doesn't release specific data from individual locations.
That should provide at least a preliminary figure for what firm regional output could be expected compared to nameplate and a corresponding figure for the reserve level required as well.
There must be a grad student somewhere looking for a project...
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:54 am
25 Dec 2006
Nice to see this good news Gar!
This makes it a lot more certain that V2G could replace conventional power plants as backup for renewables.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:04 am
26 Dec 2006
The green..nest go ahead for massive wind power! Audubon endorses wind!!!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 2:22 am
26 Dec 2006
But, I do know of a couple groups looking at wind integration issues, I'll pitch the concept to them and see if one of them might think it's worth funding. Failing that, I may see what SCADA information I can collect unofficially through contacts at other utilities and see what I might be able to do in my spare time.
I'm still a bit Grinch-y on the V2G concept, remember you're looking at two AC/DC conversions as well and the data I've seen for the inverters show 6-10% losses. With typical transmission system losses (on a 115 kV system) in the range of 4-6%, you are conceivably looking at over 30% losses for the total 'transaction'.
I like the pumped storage concept better. They use that now at Grand Coulee. They need to run a certain minimum level of generation and off-peak, there isn't always enough load. So, during those times, they pump water into a secondary reservoir that can be drawn on during system peaks.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 6:52 am
26 Dec 2006
Permalink
Engineer Posted 8:22 am
26 Dec 2006
So (silly me!), I had to open the report and head for the data tables...must be a personal shortcoming.
The data table for reserve levels shows no required increase in operating or spinning reserve requirements and for 3441 (15%) to 5688 (25%) MW of installed nameplate capacity only a 20 MW required increase in regulating reserves and 24 MW of load following reserves.
But, at the bottom of the table, there was a 386 MW increase in the "Operating Reserve Margin" that wasn't assigned to any particular category, but increasing as the wind penetration increased. So, reading between the lines, approximately a 7.5% increase in overall reserve requirements is projected, despite the Powerpoint saying little to no impact on reserves.
And, when they got to the modeling data to project the actual capacity contribution, the numbers were not particularly encouraging.
At the 15% penetration rate (3441 MW) modeled output with 2003 actual wind data resulted in an effective capacity of 719 MW. OK, a bit lower than I expected, but not too far out of line. However their model using 2005 wind data only resulted in an available capacity of 156 MW!
The 25% penetration level (5688 MW) had a projected effective capacity of 962 MW with 2003 wind conditions, but only 234 MW under 2005 conditions.
An annual realization rate of just over 5% of firm capacity to nameplate is 95% in the wrong direction!
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 9:35 am
26 Dec 2006
Operating Reserve Margin is the unloaded generation an Area requires in order to meet load within the current day in addition to contingency reserves (spin and non-spin) as well as regulating reserves. While including wind throughout a large area was able to reduce the uncertainity of wind loading within the hour it was not effective in reducing the uncertainity in the hours beyond the current hour to seven hours out. As a result the program determined that more reserve margin was required to counter this uncertainity.
As a result wind tends to reduce the operating level of committed generation, but it does not necessarily provide for taking such generation off-line. As a result of wind displacing generation that remains on-line, the operating reserves increase. Adding winds appears to be a fuel displacing measure rather than adding capacity.
I enjoyed the graph that shows the effect of spacial diversity on output deviation.
I don't understand why the coal capacity factors declined and the combustion turbine capacity factors increased with increased wind energy.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 9:54 am
26 Dec 2006
My guess would be that they are assuming the coal plants would be dispatched when the wind is available and bring a gas CT on line to match the wind output to the load.
I'm not sure about their model, but I've seen that kind of result from the AURORA system models that BPA and the NW Power and Conservation Council run.
Of course, that's one of my issues with computer models. They will show a coal plant being dispatched for a few hours and base market costs (and more recently emissions 'savings') on those assumptions.
In reality, due to the restart-ramp up-ramp down times, the coal plant will NOT actually be dispatched, unless it can be done for an entire week or month, so the result is classic stereotypical GIGO.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 1:11 pm
26 Dec 2006
I think the new version of Pro Mod does do LMP, localized marginal pricing, in order to predict market prices, which is how they do business in CA ISO and MISO and Minnesota in is MISO.
In the MISO coal is ramped up and down as that is all they have to follow load most hours. The coal units are seldom taken off line of course.
Our Pro Mod expert is reviewing the report. I suspect he will have a answer that will make sense on that capacity factor relationship. I suspect it is a low load dispatch issue.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:09 am
27 Dec 2006
And working utility engineers, with their day to day reality based outlook, start getting excited about the possibilities. Admit it you guys ARE excited.
That's ok you don't need to go to that extreme. Just convince your industry to speed up renewables, that will be fine. Thanks!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 4:14 am
27 Dec 2006
There is more interest and momentum towards renewables within utilities than I think people on the outside are willing to admit...or at least more than they see (witness my somewhat less than lukewarm reception here when I announced I was a utility engineer).
However, recognize that well over 90% of the customer base wants two things from the utility. They want the lights to come on when they throw the switch and they don't want too large of a bill at the end ot the month.
Beyond that, they don't care. We began offering a optional green power program before it was mandated by the state. Surveys had shown that over 80% of people were in favor of green power and would pay more, if it were offered.
To date (almost 3 years since we began offering it), participation in that program is less than 1% of our customers. We promote it in our quarterly newsletter, we have ads on the radio, we have sign up sheets at the local county fair, we have lobby displays and that's the best we've managed so far.
When the campaign for I-937 was in full swing (the initiative drive in WA state to require utilities to meet 15% of their load with renewable energy), I would always ask supporters (who were viewing me as the Antichrist, since I work for a utility) if they were participating in the green power program. Even among the group of folks actively campaigning for a renewables requirement from utilities, an admittedly unscientific poll result was less than 10% were spending their own money to actively support renewable energy.
The largest 'group' purchasing power through our program are utility employees!
Just convince your industry to speed up renewables, that will be fine. Thanks!
Remember the two rules above. And if the lights are on, cost is the number one concern.
If you saw my post on the cost of renewables under a different topic, current wind is $2.5M/MW of capacity and conventional generation is $1.5M/MW, but is creeping towards $2.0M/MW.
Sounds like a pretty small differential, right?
But remember that energy is different than capacity. And that you need 3 times the nameplate capacity figure to try and provide an equivalent amount of energy (we'll leave out the discussion of reserves and backup).
So, for a given amount of delivered energy, you are now looking at $7.5M/MW for wind (currently the most cost effective renewable) vs. $2.0M/MW for conventional generation.
All of the sudden, you are looking at a huge price difference and a major impact on rates. And remember that however much the particpants on this list might feel that is an acceptable cost, there are low and fixed income customers out there that require assistance with their bills with rates at current levels.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:19 am
27 Dec 2006
So why not make the green power program opt-out rather than opt-in? Give people the slightly more expensive green power they claim to want, and give them the option of opting for dirtier, cheaper electricity if they want it. I bet very few people would opt out.
I suppose there might be legal issues involved ...
www.grist.org
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 4:40 am
27 Dec 2006
Permalink
Engineer Posted 4:41 am
27 Dec 2006
It was/is optional as the state law dictated that it be an optional program. We were exempt from the law at the time (it only applies to utilities with more than 25,000 customers), but chose to comply with it voluntarily. We have since grown to more than 25,000 customers (a 'large' utility under WA law), so would be required to comply now, if we weren't already doing so.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:16 am
27 Dec 2006
I'm grumpy too about V2G, though for different reasons. Even pumped storage has 15% round trip losses due to friction. But V2G uses expensive battery cycles. And using a small amount of storage often is exactly what V2G is NOT suitable for.
However I'm not as confident about pumped storage as a lot of people. Oh it works and is cheap. But the environmental costs are not trivial. You are taking a river or lake and pumping out a substantial percentage of its contents each day. And you create a flood a second reservoir that was formerly dry. The ecological consequences of that are not trivial. If you must use pumped hydro, it seems ecologically the higher head the better. With more head, your volume of storage and volume of water displace drops.
Alternatively, given the small amount of storage needed, it may be worth while to consider using flow batteries instead. They are much more expensive, but not beyond reason, and the life-cycle environmental impacts (though also non-trivial) may well be lower than for pumped storage. And who knows; maybe their widespread use could lead to technological improvements that would drop their price.
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 9:37 am
27 Dec 2006
Jim proposes an alternative to opt-out which he calls a "brown power program." Under the "brown power" approach the regular power would be compose of a mix that grows increasingly green and/or low carbon as new resources are added over time while the brown mix is just the coal resources. Normally a person would get the regular power, but if one would wish one could specify a coal based mix instead. I can not imagine many, if any, in California wishing to sign up for brown power, how uncool would that be.
I am sure for some money will be tight, this is a factor to consider. However, our typical power bill is less than $60 for typical customer and typical rent is $1200 with typical house payment of $3000. Those who can afford those rents and payments can probably come up with an extra $10 a month. Still out of our 55,000 customers, 2400 are low income, they may hae a serious problem paying more.
While California has a target for California utilities, it is only 20% by 2017. Most of us are interested in speeding that up and exceeding that level, but in order to do that we will need more funding. This might help make that funding possible.
Interesting idea David. Lots of complications, but what do you expect with a new concept. There are always details with which to contend.
Permalink
JMG Posted 12:38 am
28 Dec 2006
The usual program offers exactly nada to the customer, who gets to continue paying both for the dirty power and buying overpriced renewable energy credits through the utility.
The utility gets to cover itself with greenwash (and gets to REcover 100% of the money spent patting itself on the back), while only the tiny few actually participate.
Nor do the customers typically get guaranteed rate stability (protection from future rate increases tied to the price of fossil fuels, nothing) or even a guarantee that they'll be first in line for the cheaper green power when the carbon taxes come. No wonder few go for it.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 1:35 am
28 Dec 2006
Not to pick nits, but it wasn't a utility devised program. State regulators, prodded by public interest groups waving around the survey results showing customers wanted green power (80% of them), but the utilities weren't providing it and claimed people would buy it if the utilities were mandated into providing it.
So far, they are conspicuous by their absence. I'm not surprised a majority of customers don't go for it, cost is number one with them. What frustrates me is that the groups and individuals clamoring for this and advertising themselves as 'environmentally conscious' are not particpating. If you want to talk about market signals, the overwhelming market signal is that customers aren't interested.
And not all utilities just bought REC's, some (mine included) bought into projects to build new renewable resources. And have continued to buy into additional projects well in excess of what our customers are currently purchasing as optional green power.
And, frankly, the state PUC's write the implementation rules that the utilities must comply with, so if the programs are ineffective, is it the utilities fault?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 2:12 am
28 Dec 2006
I know Jim, I've worked with before. He's used to working with the Investor Owned Utilities (IOU's) which have a higher coal percentage than public utilities. The average fuel mix in WA is 65% hydro, 18% coal, 9.5% natural gas, 5.2% nuclear and the rest biomass, wind, etc.
So, the 'regular' fuel mix as-is does not have much of a carbon component. And, for some utilities, it looks even better...
Our fuel mix (we are a public utility, full requirements customer of BPA...so this is based on their portfolio) is 82.5% hydro, 10.9% nuclear, 4.5% coal, 1.5% natural gas and the rest biomass, wind and landfill gas.
So, our 'regular' fuel mix is already 94% non-carbon resources. Hardly what you would call 'brown' and one that most people looking to increase renewable energy would love to get to. Our wind share is actually larger than it shows, because under CTED (the WA Department of Community Trade and Economic Development) rules, we have to subtract energy sold under our green power program and any resold as REC's.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink