Thus, the problem:
Intermittent renewable generating technologies (i.e. wind and solar) are causing havoc with electric grid operations because these technologies cannot be controlled by the operators of the electricity grid due to the fact that their generation depends on the wind blowing and the sun shining. Thus, the independent system operator in charge of running the grid must be ready to either drive down the generation of traditional technologies (i.e. natural gas and coal) when intermittent renewable generating capacity starts producing power or ramp up generation from more reliable technologies when intermittent renewable generating capacity shuts down. This means that the independent system operator needs an arsenal of flexible generating technologies to come to the rescue in order for electric consumers to receive electricity at the touch of a switch as they have been accustomed to.
So basically, in order to reliably keep the grid up, operators must have two independent systems of power generation: one to make the environmentalists and politicians happy, consisting of renewables like wind and solar, and a second more traditional capacity with power generated by coal, oil or natural gas, to make up the difference when renewables don't generate. Double expensive to operate and maintain, and very tricky to operate so the power you want at home or work is there when you want it.
I imagine there is a way to manage all this and that it will be worked out over time. California should be able to make solar power work, if any state can. We'll see.
I do not understand the confidence in California. They are debt ridden, high speed rail ,highly taxed. The only thing I see going for them is the high tech companies, but I say Bill Gates is investing in AZ. With out some big break thru in materials, solar is not going to work, wind is same, energy storage is. An issue. There is a lot of energy locked in that gal of fossil fuel. Thomas
ReplyDelete(agree with Thomas - above) The green lobby is a knee-jerk reaction without a sound underpinning in how things really work. Always has been. Solar works if it's panels on a house and storage batteries (which need to be replaced and are toxic), but it's value to the grid is challenging as reported. Same with wind power. Geothermal is more trustworthy. We need a way to tap into Earth's magma without having it push up and out...
ReplyDeleteThe only ones doing really well with the solar and wind power cash cow are the politicians and cronies of same, here in California.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with solar power is the technology has not improved that much since inception. It is not very efficient, the panels are fairly expensive and have limited lifespan.
ReplyDeleteBatteries are pretty much the same way. The lead acid battery is still one of the best electrical storage devices and that technology is over 100 years old. The lithium and other heavy metal batteries are not much of an improvement over lead acid.
The solar and wind power alternatives need major advancements in technology and advanced storage capability batteries for alternative power to be viable.
Best battery is the "edison" battery...Nickle-Iron. Lead acid fails over time and can be damaged by deep discharge. Not so Ni-FE. Lead acid is the best *economically* (during it's lifetime)...but has issues that limit the usefulness for large scale power storage.
ReplyDeleteThat graph is starting to look like a dinosaur, which may not be a good thing in the long run.
ReplyDeleteNot mentioned is nuclear power. I still think that in the long run this is the only viable option, and it releases oil to be used for plastics instead of burning it for power. The USA is falling behind in this field.
ReplyDeleteWind power in my eyes is ugly; it kills more birds than hunters ever did. It also uses a lot of oil, to keep the birdchoppers going.