Interconnection queues across the US are loaded with gigawatts of solar, wind and storage

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Texas and California lead the green grid trend, with PJM not far behind. ERCOT has 75 GW of solar in its interconnection queue

 

If you want a glimpse of the future of the clean energy transition in the United States, a good place to start is Texas — specifically, the state’s interconnection queue, where solar, wind and storage dominate the list of projects applying to get on the grid in the coming years.

Of the 121 GW of new utility-scale generation applying to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s grid operator, 75.3 GW are solar, 25.5 GW are wind and 14.5 GW are storage. Fossil fuels lag far behind, with natural gas at 5.4 GW and coal at 400 MW.

 

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/09/08/interconnection-queues-across-the-us-are-loaded-with-gigawatts-of-solar-wind-and-storage/

[Boat + 1,315]

There seems to be massive disparity in your link and mine. While solar is gaining in popularity it is still minuscule. Same with batteries which appears EROC has problems dealing with.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/08/07/texas-approves-12-gw-of-solar-projects-in-seven-months-yet-9-gw-of-battery-projects-languish/

[markslawson + 1,042]

44 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Of the 121 GW of new utility-scale generation applying to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state’s grid operator, 75.3 GW are solar, 25.5 GW are wind and 14.5 GW are storage. Fossil fuels lag far behind, with natural gas at 5.4 GW and coal at 400 MW.

 

24 minutes ago, Boat said:

There seems to be massive disparity in your link and mine. While solar is gaining in popularity it is still minuscule. Same with batteries which appears EROC has problems dealing with.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/08/07/texas-approves-12-gw-of-solar-projects-in-seven-months-yet-9-gw-of-battery-projects-languish/

I had the same impression as Boat that solar's contribution in particular was still minuscule - even wind is still comparatively small. At the moment Texas has about 18 GW of wind max on a grid with a max load of 60 GW. That's not bad - note, I've quoted the maximum figures, but you're probably looking at at least 10 per cent wind, with about 20 per cent being maximum comfort for intermittent sources - depending on the existing mix of generators. Beyond that you would start to have real problems. So how come 75 GW of solar?? I have no idea. The figure is simply ridiculous. One possibility is that a lot of projects apply and not many get right through the approval stage - another is that a lot of projects from outside the state are applying so some double counting. However, you need someone who actually knows the details of the grid processes to explain this. In the meantime its excited people like Jay who, having been confronted with the harsh reality of green energy by the Californian blackouts, has been bombarding us with renewable fantasies ever since.   

[Boat + 1,315]

The standard talking point of intermittent problems for renewables may not be a problem for some time in  Texas. Nat gas is the largest producer which is a good fit. This overcapacity used to prevent problems is less than 9% which is lower than most grids which shows how well EROC has managed varied sources. Solar and batteries will work well in Texas but we will see how the cost stacks up in a couple of years when subsidies disappear. 
Bottom line renewables and nat gas are growing fast while killing coal market share with good reliability and very competitive pricing for electricity.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

 

 even wind is still comparatively small. 

apparently coal is also comparatively small

 

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ercot.php

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

apparently coal is also comparatively small

 

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ercot.php

It's virtually impossible for a new coal plant to get EPA approval. I'm not aware of a single new coal plant getting built since the Obama administration. I am aware of a previously approved coal plant in Nevada that had to switch to natural gas at the 11th hour because Obama wasn't kidding when he said "we'll kill coal" in that San Francisco interview. There's enough holdovers from Obama still in the deep state bowels of government to keep it that way. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

It's virtually impossible for a new coal plant to get EPA approval. I'm not aware of a single new coal plant getting built since the Obama administration. I am aware of a previously approved coal plant in Nevada that had to switch to natural gas at the 11th hour because Obama wasn't kidding when he said "we'll kill coal" in that San Francisco interview. There's enough holdovers from Obama still in the deep state bowels of government to keep it that way. 

Trump in his campaigns said he would bring back "clean, beautiful coal" (which only exists in alternative reality, coal is filth).

Add that to the list of failed election promises.

No mulligan for trump. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

20 hours ago, markslawson said:

So how come 75 GW of solar?? I have no idea. The figure is simply ridiculous. One possibility is that a lot of projects apply and not many get right through the approval stage - another is that a lot of projects from outside the state are applying so some double counting. However, you need someone who actually knows the details of the grid processes to explain this. In the meantime its excited people like Jay who, having been confronted with the harsh reality of green energy by the Californian blackouts, has been bombarding us with renewable fantasies ever since.   

Many solar projects are "started" to get tax benefits. Theres one in my area my company's involved with that's currently a bunch of newly installed gravel roads nothing more. The remaining work is supposed to occur in the next couple of years. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Strangelovesurfing

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Many solar projects are "started" to get tax benefits. Theres one in my area my company's involved with that's currently a bunch of newly installed gravel roads nothing more. The remaining work is supposed to occur in the next couple of years. 

They don't get the tax credit until the project is completed and they have until the end of '23 to do so.

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 9/9/2020 at 11:58 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

apparently coal is also comparatively small

Oh yes, gas is pushing coal out of the domestic US markets as part of the fracking revolution. Its now cheaper and there's lots of it. There were also Obama-era regulations which stacked the game against coal, but it has been losing to gas in any case. Gas is also easier to mix with renewables which, fashion dictates, must now be on grids. I see its 20 per cent wind. Okay, duly noted. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They don't get the tax credit until the project is completed and they have until the end of '23 to do so.

 

9 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Many solar projects are "started" to get tax benefits.

Just looked it up - you're both right. To qualify for the big Federal solar credits the work has to start in 2020, although the developer doesn't get access to the credit until the work is completed. If the developer cannot use the tax break he/she will partner with someone who can. If the Australian experience is any guide the credit will be rorted out of all recognition. One way to amplify the tax break is to borrow heavily to do the work (harder now as interest rates are low). In any case the tax break becomes everything and the project itself almost an after thought. Still have to finish it but who cares what it does, provided they can put "solar" on it. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

22 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

It's virtually impossible for a new coal plant to get EPA approval. I'm not aware of a single new coal plant getting built since the Obama administration. I am aware of a previously approved coal plant in Nevada that had to switch to natural gas at the 11th hour because Obama wasn't kidding when he said "we'll kill coal" in that San Francisco interview. There's enough holdovers from Obama still in the deep state bowels of government to keep it that way. 

Perhaps you meant 'Clinton', as in "There's enough holdovers from Clinton still in the deep state bowels of government to keep it that way.". The 'deep state' is populated with lifers.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

On 9/8/2020 at 8:27 PM, markslawson said:

At the moment Texas has about 18 GW of wind max on a grid with a max load of 60 GW.

Texas 'nameplate' wind capacity is around 29Gw. Max production out of that is 21 Gw. On the ERCOT.COM site, click on 'Grid Information' in the title bar. Then click on 'Generation' on the left. That expands to a panel named 'Wind and Solar Integration Reports'. Click on that to get a list of daily reports.

Under the 'Wind' category, there is a link named 'Wind Integration Report'. Click on that to get a list of this month's wind reports.Click on the most recent report. It shows that the record wind generation level was 21,375 Mw. The chart on the second page shows 'installed capacity', which is a line just below 30Gw. The 'record' production level has little to do with day to day output, all this indicates is the hour of the year that was the 'best' for wind energy output.

If one goes back to previous months in 2020, one can see a rise from about 26Gw to 29Gw this year. This is unrelated to solar.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Texas 'nameplate' wind capacity is around 29Gw. Max production out of that is 21 Gw. On the ERCOT.COM site, click

TX has another ~10GW in production.  Steady wind(not awesome, but steady), Gigantic amounts of land area, no ice issues(very rare), and no major storms with generally weak tornadoes.  Free NG to balance the grid when wind cuts out: Optimum benign conditions. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

On 9/8/2020 at 8:27 PM, markslawson said:

So how come 75 GW of solar??

75Gw x 5 hours per day = 375Gwh.

375Gwh / 24 = 15 Gw, implying a need for 300Gwh in storage and 75Gwh consumed directly.

If something like that is built out, nuclear in Texas is finished. The two operating plants combined produce 4.8 Gw (4 1200Mw plants).

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Max production out of that is 21 Gw.

Okay, 21 GW rather than the 18 GW which I estimated from a glance at the results for a month or so - fair enough.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

7 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

75Gw x 5 hours per day = 375Gwh.

375Gwh / 24 = 15 Gw, implying a need for 300Gwh in storage and 75Gwh consumed directly.

If something like that is built out, nuclear in Texas is finished. The two operating plants combined produce 4.8 Gw (4 1200Mw plants).

Meredith - sorry but this post makes no sense. The actual question was just why there was so much solar in the interconnection  queue when the state doesn't have much to begin with. If you look up this page there is a list of power sources. In 2019 solar accounted for just 1.1 per cent of power in Texas.

I found this in an item from 2016 "The queue of ERCOT, Texas’ primary grid operator, contains 8,117 megawatts for solar projects at various stages of the interconnection process, as of July." I'm now beginning to suspect that the interconnection queue numbers have little to do with what might happen in coming years. If you can shed further light on that point, I'd be interested. I note also you do some fine magic wand waving in your post in making 300 GWh of storage appear.  

[Meredith Poor + 883]

22 minutes ago, markslawson said:

I note also you do some fine magic wand waving in your post in making 300 GWh of storage appear.

Presumably 15Gwh x 5 hours = 75Gwh. During the day when the sun is shining the power from panels drives the grid directly. Subtract the 75Gwh from the 375Gwh produced in that 5 hour stretch, and 300Gw is needed for the 'dawn, dusk, and overnight' power consumption.75Gw of solar is not going to make sense without a lot of storage, since most days Texas doesn't exceed a 70Gw peak.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 hours ago, markslawson said:

Oh yes, gas is pushing coal out of the domestic US markets as part of the fracking revolution. Its now cheaper and there's lots of it. There were also Obama-era regulations which stacked the game against coal, but it has been losing to gas in any case. Gas is also easier to mix with renewables which, fashion dictates, must now be on grids. I see its 20 per cent wind. Okay, duly noted. 

So far this year:

Gas = 47.2%

Solar + Wind = 25%

Coal = 16.9%

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/181766/IntGenbyFuel2020.xlsx

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/11/2020 at 2:40 AM, Meredith Poor said:

75Gw x 5 hours per day = 375Gwh.

375Gwh / 24 = 15 Gw, implying a need for 300Gwh in storage and 75Gwh consumed directly.

If something like that is built out, nuclear in Texas is finished. The two operating plants combined produce 4.8 Gw (4 1200Mw plants).

It sounds to me like Texas would be ideal place to produce both blue and green H2 before long?

[Boat + 1,315]

On 9/9/2020 at 11:01 AM, Ward Smith said:

It's virtually impossible for a new coal plant to get EPA approval. I'm not aware of a single new coal plant getting built since the Obama administration. I am aware of a previously approved coal plant in Nevada that had to switch to natural gas at the 11th hour because Obama wasn't kidding when he said "we'll kill coal" in that San Francisco interview. There's enough holdovers from Obama still in the deep state bowels of government to keep it that way. 

Lol @ deep state bowels. You mean high tech industry that are the biggest companies in the US? Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, IBM among others? They are quite forward about their enthusiasm for renewables and put their money where their mouth is. If only those right wing pollution supporting red necks were so forward looking.

Edited September 11, 2020 by Boat

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

17 minutes ago, Boat said:

Lol @ deep state bowels. You mean high tech industry that are the biggest companies in the US? Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, IBM among others? They are quite forward about their enthusiasm for renewables and put their money where their mouth is. If only those right wing pollution supporting red necks were so forward looking.

Have a Google

California Green Energy Failing 

At the same time the US west coast is burning. Instead of maintaining the forests and transmission lines state leadership has been focused and spending on Green Energy.

Enough has been destroyed in OREGON there will be a serious snap back to reality.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

28 minutes ago, Boat said:

Lol @ deep state bowels. You mean high tech industry that are the biggest companies in the US? Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, IBM among others? They are quite forward about their enthusiasm for renewables and put their money where their mouth is. If only those right wing pollution supporting red necks were so forward looking.

Your ignorant rant is duly noted. I was talking about regulations so naturally you munged that into high tech companies having nothing to do with this discussion, then you throw in rednecks just for good measure. 

Did your mom drop you on your head a lot when you were young, or are you just stoned out of your gourd while you're posting? Asking for a friend. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/11/2020 at 2:40 AM, Meredith Poor said:

75Gw x 5 hours per day = 375Gwh.

375Gwh / 24 = 15 Gw, implying a need for 300Gwh in storage and 75Gwh consumed directly.

If something like that is built out, nuclear in Texas is finished. The two operating plants combined produce 4.8 Gw (4 1200Mw plants).

I doubt that nuclear in Texas would disappear, just coal. My understanding is that California will need to import vast quantities of zero-emissions power from Texas so nuclear should be fine. Just read this article on Nuclear in China:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/China-Set-To-Debut-Next-Gen-Nuclear-Power-Plant.html

The more nuclear they build, the less LNG they will need from Texas and everywhere else. I can see the global energy glut going from extreme to catastrophic. Coal is about to die rapidly IMHO. So far, everyone seems to think that coal will be replaced by renewables plus NG, but I see a renaissance in nuclear. Indeed, several countries seem to have chosen renewables plus nuclear as opposed to renewables plus NG. Each country to it's own of course, but I don't see where the demand is for all the LNG capacity being built around the planet.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

10 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Have a Google

California Green Energy Failing 

At the same time the US west coast is burning. Instead of maintaining the forests and transmission lines state leadership has been focused and spending on Green Energy.

Enough has been destroyed in OREGON there will be a serious snap back to reality.

Oregon seems to like fire, so let's see how they like it when their WEED starts to go up in flames with the rest of the forest.  I'll admit that would be a waste, but the people have to make a decision: Do they want government services (Police, Fire, Electric, etc.) or do they want their weed cash crops?  It is my feeling that the only reason for the riots against the Federal Government was that they want the DEA out of their grow patches.