DOE draft report - Renewables no threat to the base load and grid

[silverhorsefarm]

Thoughts?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/renewable-energy-not-a-threat-to-grid-draft-of-u-s-study-finds

[Sunking]

Well if you read it says nothing. Just Nobama staffers left in DOE that need cleaned out. There is no meat on the bone, just politics.

[jflorey2]

Thoughts?

Not too much new here. It followed similar reports by ACORE and AEE a few months ago that said basically the same thing.

[SunEagle]

I read that report and IMO it seems to be written to get back at Rick Perry and is not really based on good data.

But if you don't believe me then why are the POCO's installing more energy storage systems? They are too small to provide any long term power supply and won't last more than a couple of hours although you will need over 18 hours of batteries if you use solar as your primary power source.

So the most those batteries can do is to level out the grid due to the fluctuations caused by RE not being a constant power source. I would say that is a problem for the grid base power generators.

[J.P.M.]

I saw the piece and while not usually paying a lot of attention to such things meant for mass consumption, the analogy came to me of a family with decent, but still limited resources and how they manage to maintain their current lifestyle while planning for the future. Do they keep the same dwelling and keep paying for it's increasingly costly upkeep for things like old HVAC equipment, general maintenance, etc. at the expense of ignoring newer technology like LED bulbs, etc., maybe even some well planned and cost effective R.E. that will, if done correctly, decrease expenses ?


Seems to me utilities are in something of a similar situation. Financial resources are not unlimited, so planning is necessary. The current equipment will not last forever. That's a reality, just like the existing HVAC in a home will need changeout. Some of the existing POCO equipment may be cost effectively replaced by R.E. provided the cost effectiveness (on a level playing field) is at least as good as the rest of the equipment that will potentially replace current equipment. I suspect two things, among many. One is that R.E. purveyors want to keep the advantages they've become used to after living in the government's basement way too long and refusing to grow up and stop dragging off the gov. tit. The other is the energy industries' reluctance to change (for some good reasons which I think I understand having been a part of it) and used what may be somewhat biased anti R.E. logic to help keep the status quo. I also don't have a lot of faith in Rick Perry's energy awareness.

[jflorey2]

But if you don't believe me then why are the POCO's installing more energy storage systems?

Voltage and frequency stabilization mainly; secondarily ramp-rate insurance. It allows power grid systems to operate closer to their design margins with less risk. Such systems are one reason that the grid has gotten more reliable.

So the most those batteries can do is to level out the grid due to the fluctuations caused by RE not being a constant power source. I would say that is a problem for the grid base power generators.

Yes, it is. However it's clearly not a serious problem, since by all the metrics in the report (outage frequency, outage duration, frequency and voltage stability) reliability has improved as more RE has been added.

[SunEagle]

Voltage and frequency stabilization mainly; secondarily ramp-rate insurance. It allows power grid systems to operate closer to their design margins with less risk. Such systems are one reason that the grid has gotten more reliable.

Yes, it is. However it's clearly not a serious problem, since by all the metrics in the report (outage frequency, outage duration, frequency and voltage stability) reliability has improved as more RE has been added.

Unfortunately there is a tipping point where RE will become more of a problem due to it's none continuous delivery. The cost of more batteries may become a financial barrier to cover the times when RE is not available. What that % of RE is will not be the same for different parts of the US. So to claim one place can reach 80% or 100% RE would not be possible everywhere.

Hawaii has a chance do get close to 100% due to the variety of RE power generation and the relatively small demand. Some places in CA & Nevada also have a better chance of a high % of RE due to the availability of geothermal, solar and wind. In the center of the US you can increase RE due to the availability of Wind. But for places that do not have Wind, Geo, or good sun insulation (Northern States) the % of RE gets much lower due to the cold and snowy winters.

[J.P.M.]

Unfortunately there is a tipping point where RE will become more of a problem due to it's none continuous delivery. The cost of more batteries may become a financial barrier to cover the times when RE is not available. What that % of RE is will not be the same for different parts of the US. So to claim one place can reach 80% or 100% RE would not be possible everywhere.

Hawaii has a chance do get close to 100% due to the variety of RE power generation and the relatively small demand. Some places in CA & Nevada also have a better chance of a high % of RE due to the availability of geothermal, solar and wind. In the center of the US you can increase RE due to the availability of Wind. But for places that do not have Wind, Geo, or good sun insulation (Northern States) the % of RE gets much lower due to the cold and snowy winters.

So, do what makes the most sense from a cost, availability and viability standpoint by region. But because R.E. or some other advancement may be less viable in some places than others, or not applicable at all in some others does not mean those new ways are making current technologies less reliable. R.E. may not be as much of an answer as the rose colored glasses wearing tree hugger crowd may think, but blaming R.E. for the current difficulties in grid upkeep sounds too close to an excuse for me to sign off on.

[jflorey2]

Unfortunately there is a tipping point where RE will become more of a problem due to it's none continuous delivery.

Yes and no. Hawaii has already reached that point; subgrids are sometimes producing more than they are consuming, and their system cannot handle reverse current flow on their HV transmission lines. So it's a problem for them. However, it should be pointed out that they solved this problem by outlawing new grid tie systems, and it hasn't affected system reliability. So from the perspective of a potential solar user it's a big problem - from the perspective of grid reliability it is not.

The cost of more batteries may become a financial barrier to cover the times when RE is not available. What that % of RE is will not be the same for different parts of the US. So to claim one place can reach 80% or 100% RE would not be possible everywhere.

Agreed there. In the PNW it would be pretty easy to get to 100% due to hydro; in Kansas, not so much. IMO the goal should NOT be 100%, or 80%, or whatever renewables - it should be a percentage of load that is easily displaced. As technology improves that percentage will increase with time.

[ButchDeal]

Yes and no. Hawaii has already reached that point; subgrids are sometimes producing more than they are consuming, and their system cannot handle reverse current flow on their HV transmission lines. So it's a problem for them. However, it should be pointed out that they solved this problem by outlawing new grid tie systems, and it hasn't affected system reliability. So from the perspective of a potential solar user it's a big problem - from the perspective of grid reliability it is not.

They haven't outlawed new grid tie systems. They just changed the regulations. If the street is saturated beyond a point then any new grid tie system has to be interactive, so they can control it or grid zero (on grid but no feed in).

[jflorey2]

They haven't outlawed new grid tie systems. They just changed the regulations. If the street is saturated beyond a point then any new grid tie system has to be interactive, so they can control it or grid zero (on grid but no feed in).

From HECO's website:

==============
As of April 1, 2017, the FIT Independent Observer, Accion Group LLC, is no longer managing the FIT queues. The FIT program on all Islands and All Tiers are closed to new applications. Applicants with projects in active development are instructed to direct all communications through their respective companies email addresses shown below:

. . . .
The Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program is closed to new applications. On December 5, 2014 the Public Utilities commission issued Decision and Order No. 32499 in Docket No. 2013-0194 which approved the Companies
==============

Oops, the rest of the post got truncated. So basically you can do what they call CSS (customer self supply) but not CGS (customer generation and supply, which is conventional grid tie.) So as you mention they can do grid zero but not conventional feed-in.

[SunEagle]

Yes and no. Hawaii has already reached that point; subgrids are sometimes producing more than they are consuming, and their system cannot handle reverse current flow on their HV transmission lines. So it's a problem for them. However, it should be pointed out that they solved this problem by outlawing new grid tie systems, and it hasn't affected system reliability. So from the perspective of a potential solar user it's a big problem - from the perspective of grid reliability it is not.


Agreed there. In the PNW it would be pretty easy to get to 100% due to hydro; in Kansas, not so much. IMO the goal should NOT be 100%, or 80%, or whatever renewables - it should be a percentage of load that is easily displaced. As technology improves that percentage will increase with time.

So the Hawaii POCO's put their foot down and stopped all new solar installs before "their" grid became too unstable. Until both the feeder circuits and switching system are upgraded to handle the additional 2 way flow of power sources the grid can easily be destabilized with outages occurring for all customers or per my definition "reduced reliability". I would say that falls under the category that RE can hurt base load generation.

If they do a lot more work on the infrastructure first, then more RE can be installed provided the POCO's have the ability to move power across another path to the loads or transfer power from one generating source to another if the first one stops producing.

The process requires engineering to make sure they do not over extend the power grid in either direction otherwise you can over produce and waste the power or under produce and put people in the dark.

[SunEagle]

So, do what makes the most sense from a cost, availability and viability standpoint by region. But because R.E. or some other advancement may be less viable in some places than others, or not applicable at all in some others does not mean those new ways are making current technologies less reliable. R.E. may not be as much of an answer as the rose colored glasses wearing tree hugger crowd may think, but blaming R.E. for the current difficulties in grid upkeep sounds too close to an excuse for me to sign off on.

I agree that some POCO's are using the excuse that RE hurts the grid reliability which is not always the truth. But in some cases the grid is limited even with fossil fuel power generation which results in a lot of blackouts. That happens a lot in remote places of states like Maine.

Pushing the installation of an RE power generating source that is not always there or can be quickly interrupted is a stupid plan for any power supplier since for most the first priority is keeping the grid up and customers happy. Recklessly adding variables to the power generating system, which cannot have a solid forecast on availability, is IMO similar to adding a round to the chamber for Russian Roulette. You are increasing the chances for failure.

Each POCO needs to examine how much it can introduce RE into the mix as well as make sure they improve the grid for both natural and human disasters. There is no one or two answers that will work for everyone.

[ButchDeal]

Oops, the rest of the post got truncated. So basically you can do what they call CSS (customer self supply) but not CGS (customer generation and supply, which is conventional grid tie.) So as you mention they can do grid zero but not conventional feed-in.

Right so to do that you just put in a smart inverter such as any from SolarEdge and a consumption meter and configure the meter to grid zero.

Or optionally, more expensive but also more beneficial you can add a battery.

The quotes were about the FIT incentive though.

https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/Doc...ELCOPublic.pdf

CGS seems to be still going just not on all streets:

https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/clean-energy-hawaii/producing-clean-energy/customer-self-supply-and-grid-supply-programs

[jflorey2]

Right so to do that you just put in a smart inverter such as any from SolarEdge and a consumption meter and configure the meter to grid zero.

Right - still legal. (As are, apparently, battery based self consumption systems.)

The quotes were about the FIT incentive though.

Right. That's how they implement grid tie nowadays.