Connecticut looking to end net metering.

[J.P.M.]

No mystery why CA is having rolling Blackouts, the state is run by people like Jflorey2 with failed energy policies depending on RE to make up the short falls. Gotta learn for every wat of RE must be backed up with conventional generation. So Ca gets to pay twice for power and put up with shortages and outages. CA got exactly what they asked for, screwed.

The story is correct as published, but the idea that it's newsworthy may say something about how often it happens compared to times past.

Edit: I incorrectly picked the wrong post to respond to. My comment was meant for SunEagle's comment to Jeff's post about Solar Turbine Inc. peakers and the reference to the LAPWD blackout of 26K users.

Apologies for any confusion.

[SunEagle]

We have two Solar turbines (by Solar Turbine, nothing to do with solar power) that we run for cogeneration at this campus - 4.6 megawatt Mercury 50's. Per the plant's manager, the main costs of the turbine are maintenance (which is done on both a per-hour and a per-start basis) fuel and salary for plant operators (one full time equivalent.) The exhaust heat also runs the air conditioning via an absorption-cycle chiller. Thus operating decisions revolve on what days to start it on and how long to run it. 10am to 5pm is a common run time in summer. We get some incentives to run it on days that SDG+E is short on reserves.

For peakers, you are going to see one start a day during high demand times, so that's not really going going to change much. I don't know how they staff such plants, but I very much doubt they have crews that only get paid when it's hot out - so again no change there. What you will see is lower run times due to solar energy, which translates into fewer hours on the turbine and less fuel.

So overall costs are going to go down. Per megawatt-hour they will go up, of course, because the fixed cost (salaries) won't change. But for the system as a whole, you end up with lower overall expenditures.


Hmm. I haven't seen a blackout here since 2011. Some places see blackouts due to cars running into poles, backcountry fires and the like, but overall PG+E has gotten a lot more reliable since 2006, and SDG+E and SCE have stayed about the same.

Thanks for the info on your turbine systems. We only had one GE 6MW unit at my old job but it was interesting to see the yearly maintenance on it when we had a plant wide steam outage.

I am not sure who has lost power in CA but the attached web-page may shed some light on it or it may just be fake news. Hard to tell these days.

[jflorey2]

You could be correct. I have not personally run or maintained a peaker plant but I will say that long duration's of little or "no- use" may not necessarily be a good thing for any type of combustion turbine.

We have two Solar turbines (by Solar Turbine, nothing to do with solar power) that we run for cogeneration at this campus - 4.6 megawatt Mercury 50's. Per the plant's manager, the main costs of the turbine are maintenance (which is done on both a per-hour and a per-start basis) fuel and salary for plant operators (one full time equivalent.) The exhaust heat also runs the air conditioning via an absorption-cycle chiller. Thus operating decisions revolve on what days to start it on and how long to run it. 10am to 5pm is a common run time in summer. We get some incentives to run it on days that SDG+E is short on reserves.

For peakers, you are going to see one start a day during high demand times, so that's not really going going to change much. I don't know how they staff such plants, but I very much doubt they have crews that only get paid when it's hot out - so again no change there. What you will see is lower run times due to solar energy, which translates into fewer hours on the turbine and less fuel.

So overall costs are going to go down. Per megawatt-hour they will go up, of course, because the fixed cost (salaries) won't change. But for the system as a whole, you end up with lower overall expenditures.

As for saving costs by not running peakers when you need to I would say that with all them power outages in SoCal lately, maybe the POCO's should be running those peakers more often.

Hmm. I haven't seen a blackout here since 2011. Some places see blackouts due to cars running into poles, backcountry fires and the like, but overall PG+E has gotten a lot more reliable since 2006, and SDG+E and SCE have stayed about the same.

[J.P.M.]

No mystery why CA is having rolling Blackouts, the state is run by people like Jflorey2 with failed energy policies depending on RE to make up the short falls. Gotta learn for every wat of RE must be backed up with conventional generation. So Ca gets to pay twice for power and put up with shortages and outages. CA got exactly what they asked for, screwed.

I haven't heard or been subject to a rolling blackout from SDG & E for ~ 5 + years. The ISO as it's called ( The Independent System Operator) that regulates a lot of the CA grid seems to be doing better at it. Some would argue that all the distributed R.E. in CA has had something to do with the at least perceived improvement.

CA residents may pay more for power, but that doesn't seem to be decreasing the state's population much.

Like everything else in life, pay your money, take your choice. I haven't seen anyone with their feet nailed to the floor around here, and since that's what people usually vote with (their feet that is), I suspect they're mostly content, for some of them no doubt, because they're happy morons the likes of which are ubiquitously not confined exclusively to CA.

[Sunking]

As for saving costs by not running peakers when you need to I would say that with all them power outages in SoCal lately, maybe the POCO's should be running those peakers more often.

No mystery why CA is having rolling Blackouts, the state is run by people like Jflorey2 with failed energy policies depending on RE to make up the short falls. Gotta learn for every wat of RE must be backed up with conventional generation. So Ca gets to pay twice for power and put up with shortages and outages. CA got exactly what they asked for, screwed.

[SunEagle]

Agreed. But we're not talking about a peaker that runs at "lower speeds." Peakers always run at exactly the same speeds, and they generally run at close to full power. Under those conditions, mean time between overhauls is based on operating hours. Run a straight through combustion turbine plant less often, it lasts longer.

You could be correct. I have not personally run or maintained a peaker plant but I will say that long duration's of little or "no- use" may not necessarily be a good thing for any type of combustion turbine.

As for saving costs by not running peakers when you need to I would say that with all them power outages in SoCal lately, maybe the POCO's should be running those peakers more often.

[jflorey2]

Unfortunately the cost to maintain those units goes up since they generate less which brings in less profit. Also because they run 8 hours less a day does not mean their maintenance can be prolonged the same number of hours.

Think of an ICE vehicle idling around town all year and only putting on 1000 miles vs one that runs the high ways at optimum speed and puts on 5000 miles a year. The vehicle with less miles may actually need more maintenance because of the shorter runs and lower speeds which would not clean out the engine as well as the other vehicle.

Agreed. But we're not talking about a peaker that runs at "lower speeds." Peakers always run at exactly the same speeds, and they generally run at close to full power. Under those conditions, mean time between overhauls is based on operating hours. Run a straight through combustion turbine plant less often, it lasts longer.

[SunEagle]

Here in Socal we have power plants called peakers. They do not run when they don't need the power, and generally run only during the summer on hot days. That doesn't just save one drop - it saves tons of fuel, and thousands in per-hour maintenance, when they are shut down. And as solar has been built out here, they've been running less and less. Peakers that used to run from 10am to 9pm now run from 6pm to 9pm - a factor of 3 savings.

Unfortunately the cost to maintain those units goes up since they generate less which brings in less profit. Also because they run 8 hours less a day does not mean their maintenance can be prolonged the same number of hours.

Think of an ICE vehicle idling around town all year and only putting on 1000 miles vs one that runs the high ways at optimum speed and puts on 5000 miles a year. The vehicle with less miles may actually need more maintenance because of the shorter runs and lower speeds which would not clean out the engine as well as the other vehicle.

So yes the peakers are not burning as much fuel now as before but the cost to keep them working is still there. The expense of part& labor will always be more expensive then fuel.

Who do you think will be paying that extra expense?

[jflorey2]

Nope not one drop. The power plant was still on line burning fuel, you just made it more inefficient and wasted power never used.

Here in Socal we have power plants called peakers. They do not run when they don't need the power, and generally run only during the summer on hot days. That doesn't just save one drop - it saves tons of fuel, and thousands in per-hour maintenance, when they are shut down. And as solar has been built out here, they've been running less and less. Peakers that used to run from 10am to 9pm now run from 6pm to 9pm - a factor of 3 savings.

[BFW577]

This passed and CT will officially end net metering. Those with existing panels will be grandfathered in until 2039. So glad I installed last year and am grandfathered in. Part of the bill was that they lowered the monthly service connection charge from $23 to $9. Existing solar customers will now save $168 a year.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillst...018&bill_num=9


NET METERING SUNSET

Sunsets the state's current net metering program for residential customers when the state's residential solar investment program expires, and for all other customers, when PURA approves the procurement plan for the new zero-emission, low-emission, and shared clean energy programs

Under current law, net metering generally allows customers who own certain renewable energy resources to earn billing credits at the retail electric rate when the customer generates more power than he or she uses (essentially running the meter backwards). The bill ends new net metering opportunities for (1) residential customers when the state's residential solar investment program expires (see BACKGROUND) and (2) all other customers when PURA approves the procurement plan for the bill's new zero-emission, low-emission, and shared clean energy programs.

It allows customers who are net metering before then to continue receiving net metering credits under the current system through December 31, 2039. PURA must establish a rate on a cents-per-kWh basis for the EDC to buy electricity generated by these customers after December 31, 2039.

[J.P.M.]

I'm at around 48 degrees N latitude, and my array is tilted 45 degrees. But that still can't do anything about the non-negligible attenuation from the atmosphere at low solar elevation angles. You only get 60-70% (more at higher altitude) of 90-degree zenith insolation when the sun is at 18 degrees above the horizon, even if your panels are still perpendicular to the sun.

And, as I wrote, another reason among many why flat plate solar applications are seen in somewhat inverse proportion to the latitude of a location.

Also, how do you know that difference is 60 - 70 % ? Have you measured it ?

As for atmospheric attenuation, it's a lot more complicated than that as I've learned from being a student of the subject for 40+years and cut my R.E. teeth at 43 deg. lat. in a 7,000+ F. DD climate.

I remember back in the '70's when I began this solar odyssey being a bit surprised that 12/21 solar noon irradiance measurements with a hand held silicon pyranometer commonly saw normal (perpendicular) irradiance readings of around 900W/m^2, and summer solstice solar noon measurements with the same instrument and same method/procedure commonly produced readings of about 950-970 W/m^2. Not exactly scientific precision, but done a lot of times with the same instrument in the same way over many years.

The atmosphere is a lot different winter to summer, a lot dryer and usually cleaner in winter, as is the sun-earth distance and several other things.

[bcroe]

If we agree its only about ROI, we could just go to coal. Eventually pollution will rise so high that the
population and pollution will stabilize. Cancel expensive health care of course.

If that isn't an agreeable solution, we need to work out something else. Money would be spent on
R & D, some of it "wasted", hopefully not at an intolerable level. Imagine the comments probably
made about money wasted when attempts were made to develop the first steam engine, car,
airplane, or transistor.

I do get tired of wild claims made on all sides trying to justify their particular position. Bruce Roe

[BackwoodsEE]

Nope not one drop. The power plant was still on line burning fuel, you just made it more inefficient and wasted power never used.

It's hyperbole to say "not one drop." Yes, there is baseline fuel consumption keeping everything spinning, but when a generator gets loaded down less, it requires less torque to maintain its rotation. That means less natgas firing a turbine, or reactor neutrons making steam, or water through a hydro turbine.

The problem you allude to with the wasted power is the need to maintain massive amounts of fossil-fueled spinning reserve that can be throttled up in a fraction of a second to meet sudden demand like, say, thousands of microwaves starting on during halftime or a cloud passing over hundreds of rooftop arrays. Unfortunately, solar and wind do nothing to help that problem, given how intermittent they are. But they can reduce overall fuel consumption somewhat.

[BackwoodsEE]

As for 18 deg. tilts, most good designs take latitude into account and good designers know that tilt = latitude and a 180 deg. array azimuth is a good place to begin. However, the reality being one of a lot of roofs at 18 - 20 deg. tilts with azimuths all over the place, the costs, design requirements and aesthetics of increasing tilt angles are some of many reasons why the number of residential PV applications/capita in an area tends to be somewhat inversely proportional with latitude.

I'm at around 48 degrees N latitude, and my array is tilted 45 degrees. But that still can't do anything about the non-negligible attenuation from the atmosphere at low solar elevation angles. You only get 60-70% (more at higher altitude) of 90-degree zenith insolation when the sun is at 18 degrees above the horizon, even if your panels are still perpendicular to the sun.

[J.P.M.]

I'm all for leveling the playing field and getting rid of tariffs and subsidies, but lets be fair about it. The utilities then ought to pay the full cost of their burning coal and atoms. The Harvard Medical School did a study on the deleterious health effects of burning coal and estimated the yearly cost in the USA at $300 billion to $500 billion. And I don't think we have to go into the costs of nuclear waste etc not to mention possible climate change. Society has turned a huge blind eye to these problems in the interest of "cheap" electric rates for the poor ratepayer and then the utilities complain about how its "not fair" that clean, renewable solar gets a net-metering incentive. Let the utilities charge rate payers $1000 per person per year to cover the costs of their cheap fuel and I'd be glad to pay the full cost of grid access for my solar. I can't believe this solar forum has so many solar naysayers.....

I respect your opinion and share some of it, but the ideas of environmental costs, and particularly the need for some to resort to what I'd suggest most or at least many others see as fuzzy, if not vague and unintelligible math, and therefore not to be trusted, is a sticking point for me and has been for the 40+ years I've been watching it. Same, BTW, for fossil fuel and nuke subsidies.

The way I see it, and if for no other reason than speaking to your audience in ways they can identify with, if environmentalists and those with skin in the solar/R.E. game, and a group I see as a bunch of shortsighted and self centered treehuggers can't find ways to convince most people of the rightness of their cause without resorting to arguments that most folks have no practical reality with, they ought to either find better spokespeople/better marketing/convincing, or go home and shut up.

Example: How many folks do you really think give any consideration to what some academic study that's very likely more esoteric, intellectual, and most importantly, probably irrelevant to most folks when they open their electric bills and get sticker shock has to say about energy ?

I agree that society has turned a blind eye, but that has always been the case. If the goal is to use less power and so, in some implied but usually unspecified way, help the planet, then the best way to get results is to hit people in the wallet. More how I see it: What are mostly esoteric appeals to people's better natures quickly lose out when it comes to bills and self interest. Charging users a clearly identifiable sum for what I believe is real, but mostly nonquantifiable environmental damage won't fly.

I've been on Jflorey2's page for some years now;, That is, get rid of any and all subsidies and stop making policy via the tax code. Make the playing field truly level, let free market capitalism pick winners/losers, let competition decide and let the whiners, special interests, lobbyists and leeches of all sides go to hell.