Jay McKinsey

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

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Boat said:

That sounds like a political algorithm dreamed up by the right. Nat gas kicked coals butt while renewables took a leg. Obama’s did add some cost to coal but them gas boys even flare to keep prices low to gain market share. This is Red on Red while you talk trash on those greenies. So who’s side you on, gas or coal. 

The NG guys don't flare to reduce supply. In fact the NG guys don't flare at all: they just leave it in the ground. The Oil guys flare NG coming out of their oil wells ("associated gas") because they want to pump and sell their oil, but they don't have easy access to NG pipelines. When they do have acess to NG pipelines they can and do sell that NG for very little, thus effectively capping the NG prices.

You are correct that NG woutd be killing coal even if there were no wind or solar. Wind ans solar would eventually kill coal on price alone, but ludicrously low NG prices are killing it now, not later. The greenies like to claim credit for killing coal, The fossil fuel guys like to blame the greenites for killing coal. NG is killing coal.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Boat said:

That sounds like a political algorithm dreamed up by the right. Nat gas kicked coals butt while renewables took a leg. Obama’s did add some cost to coal but them gas boys even flare to keep prices low to gain market share. This is Red on Red while you talk trash on those greenies. So who’s side you on, gas or coal. 

As is your usual, you used a lot of words to demonstrate ignorance. The bolded part is especially ridiculous. Your logic is that destroying product keeps the price low? By that brilliant thinking, milk prices would drop through the floor if those farmers would just pour it on the ground. 

BTW, the proper use of who's is "who is" or "who has". If you meant the possessive form you need to use whose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I am unaware of an undiscovered legal flaw. Can you provide a link?

I agree it was a good lesson and at very minimal cost. It will provide renewed focus and vigor to the transition. 

I think you overstate the extent of the blackouts. Here is what I am aware of:

CAISO scheduled a Board of Governors meeting on August 17, 2020, for a briefing on system conditions, including the August 14 and 15 rolling blackouts. CAISO staff provided a detailed sequence of events that are helpful for understanding the outages. 

On August 14 at 2:56 p.m., CAISO lost 475 MW of gas-fired generation. At 3:20 p.m., forecasting a shortage of energy for the next few hours, CAISO declared a Stage 2 emergency. As solar generation began to decline as the sun set, at 6:36 p.m., CAISO was forced to declare a Stage 3 emergency and order 500 MW of load shed. Ten minutes later, it ordered an additional 500 MW of load shed. Slightly more than an hour later, the crisis was past, and at 7:56 p.m., CAISO ordered all load to be restored. 500MW = 10min, 1GW = 1h 10min

On August 15, from 4:10 p.m. to 5:10 p.m., wind generation increased quickly, requiring other generation to back down, and then from 5:10 p.m. to 6:05 p.m., wind generation fell off quickly, requiring other generation to ramp back up. While CAISO was addressing those ramps, a 400 MW generator ramped down quickly, at 6:13 p.m. Shortly thereafter, at 6:25 p.m., CAISO was required to order 470 MW of load shed. At 6:47 p.m., however, CAISO was able to order load to be restored. 470MW = 22min

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/what-caused-californias-recent-blackouts/584085/

As an economist, I'm reasonably confident you understand supply and demand. However, in economics there's this concept called elasticity of demand. In electrical engineering, there's no such thing. Power produced must be consumed, immediately. It's easy to point at graphs and charts and play economics mumbo jumbo with historical data, but the reality of a systems operator is far more complex and deadly. Highly educated and trained engineers are monitoring the SCADA systems in real time, continuously and are far more akin to air traffic controllers than traditional engineers who get to take their time and design things right. The California ISO operates for the benefit of the grid not any company or interest. Power produced (supply) must be consumed (demand) within seconds if not sooner. There is no slack, there is no shock absorber. They don't care about ramp times, they care about the very real disasters that will commence when too much power has no place to go. Hint, it will find a place to go, and humans don't want to be there when it does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

As an economist, I'm reasonably confident you understand supply and demand. However, in economics there's this concept called elasticity of demand. In electrical engineering, there's no such thing. Power produced must be consumed, immediately. It's easy to point at graphs and charts and play economics mumbo jumbo with historical data, but the reality of a systems operator is far more complex and deadly. Highly educated and trained engineers are monitoring the SCADA systems in real time, continuously and are far more akin to air traffic controllers than traditional engineers who get to take their time and design things right. The California ISO operates for the benefit of the grid not any company or interest. Power produced (supply) must be consumed (demand) within seconds if not sooner. There is no slack, there is no shock absorber. They don't care about ramp times, they care about the very real disasters that will commence when too much power has no place to go. Hint, it will find a place to go, and humans don't want to be there when it does. 

Excess electricity will go to batteries and other storage as those resources come online. Other than that what are you on about?

As I type this batteries and other storage are consuming 32MW of excess electricity on the CAISO grid.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Excess electricity will go to batteries and other storage as those resources come online. Other than that what are you on about?

In other words that doesn't exist. You're the one who quoted the ISO but you didn't know the why. That's far more important than the what. If you have 200mw of batteries they can't handle 500mw excess power, not to mention they weren't just sitting there empty they've been continuously charged, so maybe could handle a 10% jolt without melting. That means to handle this event, you'd have needed 10gw of installed battery capacity sitting there to act as your imaginary shock absorber.

I don't have anything against you personally Jay, you just occupy the slot I have of non technical bunglecrats who define ridiculous operating conditions for the poor engineers who have to operate under your pie in the sky scenarios. Guys like you get the ears of the Gruesome Newsom's of the world, while the engineers who know what the fck they're doing, sadly do not. On the off chance you get to propose something to Gruesome, I'm spending some effort to edumacate you a bit. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

In other words that doesn't exist. You're the one who quoted the ISO but you didn't know the why. That's far more important than the what. If you have 200mw of batteries they can't handle 500mw excess power, not to mention they weren't just sitting there empty they've been continuously charged, so maybe could handle a 10% jolt without melting. That means to handle this event, you'd have needed 10gw of installed battery capacity sitting there to act as your imaginary shock absorber.

I don't have anything against you personally Jay, you just occupy the slot I have of non technical bunglecrats who define ridiculous operating conditions for the poor engineers who have to operate under your pie in the sky scenarios. Guys like you get the ears of the Gruesome Newsom's of the world, while the engineers who know what the fck they're doing, sadly do not. On the off chance you get to propose something to Gruesome, I'm spending some effort to edumacate you a bit. 

I still have no idea what you are talking about. The event at hand was a power shortage not a power surplus. What we needed was 1GW with 1.5GWh more of stored electricity on the grid and there would have been no rolling blackouts. And that is being built as we speak.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

39 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

In other words that doesn't exist. You're the one who quoted the ISO but you didn't know the why. That's far more important than the what. If you have 200mw of batteries they can't handle 500mw excess power, not to mention they weren't just sitting there empty they've been continuously charged, so maybe could handle a 10% jolt without melting. That means to handle this event, you'd have needed 10gw of installed battery capacity sitting there to act as your imaginary shock absorber.

I don't have anything against you personally Jay, you just occupy the slot I have of non technical bunglecrats who define ridiculous operating conditions for the poor engineers who have to operate under your pie in the sky scenarios. Guys like you get the ears of the Gruesome Newsom's of the world, while the engineers who know what the fck they're doing, sadly do not. On the off chance you get to propose something to Gruesome, I'm spending some effort to edumacate you a bit. 

It is not nearly as difficult to manage excess power as Ward thinks.

Unlike large power plants, wind and solar can be turned off without damaging them or requiring long restart times.

Wasting power at a substation is also fairly trivial.

 

 

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I still have no idea what you are talking about. The event at hand was a power shortage not a power surplus. What we needed was 1GW with 1.5GWh more of stored electricity on the grid and there would have been no rolling blackouts. And that is being built as we speak.

Understood, I'm looking ahead to the next problem. The only way to cure the supply/demand problem is more supply. Adding batteries assumes there's adequate supply, which there isn't. What to do with excess supply becomes the next problem. 10gw of nameplate wind capacity equals how much produced power? Answer, it depends. Reality says maybe 20% and similar for solar (24 hour days). For every (uncertain, produced) gigawatt of "renewable" power, you'll need an equivalent amount of "peaking" power, that's just to tread water. Add in once thru cooling requirements (lowering efficiency) and the engineering troubles multiply. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Understood, I'm looking ahead to the next problem. The only way to cure the supply/demand problem is more supply. Adding batteries assumes there's adequate supply, which there isn't. What to do with excess supply becomes the next problem. 10gw of nameplate wind capacity equals how much produced power? Answer, it depends. Reality says maybe 20% and similar for solar (24 hour days). For every (uncertain, produced) gigawatt of "renewable" power, you'll need an equivalent amount of "peaking" power, that's just to tread water. Add in once thru cooling requirements (lowering efficiency) and the engineering troubles multiply. 

As @Enthalpic said earlier, curtailing wind and solar is simple:

Currently, the ISO’s most effective tool for managing oversupply is to “curtail” renewable resources. That means plant generation is scaled back when there is insufficient demand to consume production. Curtailment is the reduction of output of a renewable resource below what it could have otherwise produced. It is calculated by subtracting the energy that was actually produced from the amount of electricity forecasted to be generated. Unlike other renewable resources like small-conduit hydroelectric, geothermal, bio-mass and bio-gas, new solar and wind resources are able, both technologically and contractually, to respond to oversupply conditions by reducing their production output.

https://www.caiso.com/documents/curtailmentfastfacts.pdf

image.png.8dc7b09a6c2066a31ced401cb66565aa.png

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

As @Enthalpic said earlier, curtailing wind and solar is simple:

Currently, the ISO’s most effective tool for managing oversupply is to “curtail” renewable resources. That means plant generation is scaled back when there is insufficient demand to consume production. Curtailment is the reduction of output of a renewable resource below what it could have otherwise produced. It is calculated by subtracting the energy that was actually produced from the amount of electricity forecasted to be generated. Unlike other renewable resources like small-conduit hydroelectric, geothermal, bio-mass and bio-gas, new solar and wind resources are able, both technologically and contractually, to respond to oversupply conditions by reducing their production output.

https://www.caiso.com/documents/curtailmentfastfacts.pdf

image.png.8dc7b09a6c2066a31ced401cb66565aa.png

Here in Washington State you'll see the wind turbines by Vantage frantically spinning making juice in the spring while the huge dams on the Columbia want to produce power, but instead have to waste the water over the spillway.  The wind operators get fined, and happily pay the fine since they're making big bucks the whole time. So, one legitimate renewable giving way to another. I'll be quite amused when it's solar versus wind versus geothermal in Kalifornistan. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

28 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Here in Washington State you'll see the wind turbines by Vantage frantically spinning making juice in the spring while the huge dams on the Columbia want to produce power, but instead have to waste the water over the spillway.  The wind operators get fined, and happily pay the fine since they're making big bucks the whole time. So, one legitimate renewable giving way to another. I'll be quite amused when it's solar versus wind versus geothermal in Kalifornistan. 

That is a market issue unrelated to electrical engineering; which was your argument.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 The wind operators get fined, and happily pay the fine since they're making big bucks the whole time.

Take note: Ward thinks wind is a highly profitable venture.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

That is a market issue unrelated to electrical engineering; which was your argument.

Even though I've blocked your dumb ass, your post showed up. 

It's still an electrical engineering issue dipstick because they both can't produce power at the same time if there's no load to take it. Supply must equal demand. The market exists to attempt to create order. The market failed so the adult in the room (Bonneville power administration) wasted water storage in the freaking spring runoff, because assholes get subsidized pricing. 

I hope you stay blocked because I'm afraid your stupidity is more contagious than Covid and I don't want to catch it from you. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Even though I've blocked your dumb ass, your post showed up. 

It's still an electrical engineering issue dipstick because they both can't produce power at the same time if there's no load to take it. Supply must equal demand. The market exists to attempt to create order. The market failed so the adult in the room (Bonneville power administration) wasted water storage in the freaking spring runoff, because assholes get subsidized pricing. 

I hope you stay blocked because I'm afraid your stupidity is more contagious than Covid and I don't want to catch it from you. 

No, oversupply is predominately a market issue. The hint is in the word supply

In the case at hand the BPA curtails wind for two reasons but for one cause it was determined that the wind operators should be compensated for their losses. Precisely because the other curtailment reason is technical there is no compensation. The compensation is for lost market sales.

btw - you horribly mangled the facts of the case, here is what is actually happening In the BPA from 7 years ago. Still researching to understand their current situation.

The second formal process for curtailment, implemented in March 2012, relates to the oversupply of electricity due to excess hydro generation. Table 2 shows curtailments under OMP and its predecessor, Environmental Redispatch, for the last few years. During the spring run-off months when river levels are high (typically April through July), BPA must run water through its turbines and generate power when the use of spillwaysthe only alternative to generationwould increase total dissolved gases above federal limits and threaten fish. Unlike DSO 216, BPA compensates wind generators for curtailments under OMP. However, in the future, BPA may recover some percentage of this compensation back from the wind generators through a yet-to-be-filed oversupply rate, so wind generators will not ultimately receive full compensation for OMP curtailments. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has ruled that a previous program that lacked compensation was discriminatory, violating the principle of open transmission access on terms comparable to what BPA provides to its own generators. Under the OMP, BPA initially proposed splitting the cost of the program equally between wind generators and BPA’s customers, but FERC rejected this cost-sharing mechanism and directed BPA to submit a revised proposal in a proceeding that is ongoing. 8 Also, wind generators contend that BPA has not exhausted noncurtailment options, such as allowing market prices to go negative in order to increase demand and reduce oversupply by providing market signals to other generators (Renewable Northwest Project 2013).

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60983.pdf

For current situation see: 

https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201805-Managing-seasonal-power-oversupply.pdf

https://www.bpa.gov/Projects/Initiatives/Oversupply/Pages/Annual-Oversupply-Review.aspx

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

In other words that doesn't exist. You're the one who quoted the ISO but you didn't know the why. That's far more important than the what. If you have 200mw of batteries they can't handle 500mw excess power, not to mention they weren't just sitting there empty they've been continuously charged, so maybe could handle a 10% jolt without melting. That means to handle this event, you'd have needed 10gw of installed battery capacity sitting there to act as your imaginary shock absorber.

I don't have anything against you personally Jay, you just occupy the slot I have of non technical bunglecrats who define ridiculous operating conditions for the poor engineers who have to operate under your pie in the sky scenarios. Guys like you get the ears of the Gruesome Newsom's of the world, while the engineers who know what the fck they're doing, sadly do not. On the off chance you get to propose something to Gruesome, I'm spending some effort to edumacate you a bit. 

Ward, don't be such a pussy. You know that any excess electricity can be sent to GROUND? If there are no batteries or green H2 plants to take the extra juice, just give it to mother nature? Same as flaring gas hey?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, oversupply is predominately a market issue. The hint is in the word supply

In the case at hand the BPA curtails wind for two reasons but for one cause it was determined that the wind operators should be compensated for their losses. Precisely because the other curtailment reason is technical there is no compensation. The compensation is for lost market sales.

btw - you horribly mangled the facts of the case, here is what is actually happening In the BPA from 7 years ago. Still researching to understand their current situation.

The second formal process for curtailment, implemented in March 2012, relates to the oversupply of electricity due to excess hydro generation. Table 2 shows curtailments under OMP and its predecessor, Environmental Redispatch, for the last few years. During the spring run-off months when river levels are high (typically April through July), BPA must run water through its turbines and generate power when the use of spillwaysthe only alternative to generationwould increase total dissolved gases above federal limits and threaten fish. Unlike DSO 216, BPA compensates wind generators for curtailments under OMP. However, in the future, BPA may recover some percentage of this compensation back from the wind generators through a yet-to-be-filed oversupply rate, so wind generators will not ultimately receive full compensation for OMP curtailments. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has ruled that a previous program that lacked compensation was discriminatory, violating the principle of open transmission access on terms comparable to what BPA provides to its own generators. Under the OMP, BPA initially proposed splitting the cost of the program equally between wind generators and BPA’s customers, but FERC rejected this cost-sharing mechanism and directed BPA to submit a revised proposal in a proceeding that is ongoing. 8 Also, wind generators contend that BPA has not exhausted noncurtailment options, such as allowing market prices to go negative in order to increase demand and reduce oversupply by providing market signals to other generators (Renewable Northwest Project 2013).

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60983.pdf

For current situation see: 

https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201805-Managing-seasonal-power-oversupply.pdf

https://www.bpa.gov/Projects/Initiatives/Oversupply/Pages/Annual-Oversupply-Review.aspx

The economist blames the market for not consuming more? After decades of beating said market over the head about conservation? 

It's not like these guys don't know what they're doing, this was BPA'S policy before the major event in question

Quote

If BPA has to temporarily limit energy generation under Environmental Redispatch, it will replace all displaced thermal and wind generation with free hydropower from federal dams on the Columbia River system. BPA will continue working with its regional partners to develop a long-term solution to seasonal high water/high wind events.

Recognize when BPA'S policy was ignored (the private operators refused to be displaced) BPA went to court with FERC. now we have two Federal agencies fighting it out, and the legalese mumbo jumbo you quoted above is the result. Because lawyers not engineers. Things would have turned out differently if there were commercial entities on both sides. It might still be in court. What the wind operators did was identical to what Enron did. Free power wasn't good enough, they wanted BPA to pay them to take power, all because of an event they caused.

At any rate, I'm just making predictions. Imagine the oil market if there was insufficient storage and some catastrophic demand event such as, I don't know, global overreaction to a supposed pandemic? Why you'd see WTI going all negative and people paying to have you take their oil. Now what happens when the storage isn't really full, just contractually obligated to insiders? Same thing. Now imagine that scenario with power. It will happen. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

 

At any rate, I'm just making predictions. Imagine the oil market if there was insufficient storage and some catastrophic demand event such as, I don't know, global overreaction to a supposed pandemic? Why you'd see WTI going all negative and people paying to have you take their oil. Now what happens when the storage isn't really full, just contractually obligated to insiders? Same thing. Now imagine that scenario with power. It will happen. 

Your whole argument was supply and demand must always be matched for power.  Oil supply and demand never matches, which is why you saw those crazy price swings. 

Power production and storage can not be compared to oil production and storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Even though I've blocked your dumb ass, your post showed up.

Just admit you read my posts.  It's okay, and you probably should because I'm always correcting your mistakes. Consider it an opportunity for learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The economist blames the market for not consuming more? After decades of beating said market over the head about conservation? 

It's not like these guys don't know what they're doing, this was BPA'S policy before the major event in question

Recognize when BPA'S policy was ignored (the private operators refused to be displaced) BPA went to court with FERC. now we have two Federal agencies fighting it out, and the legalese mumbo jumbo you quoted above is the result. Because lawyers not engineers. Things would have turned out differently if there were commercial entities on both sides. It might still be in court. What the wind operators did was identical to what Enron did. Free power wasn't good enough, they wanted BPA to pay them to take power, all because of an event they caused.

At any rate, I'm just making predictions. Imagine the oil market if there was insufficient storage and some catastrophic demand event such as, I don't know, global overreaction to a supposed pandemic? Why you'd see WTI going all negative and people paying to have you take their oil. Now what happens when the storage isn't really full, just contractually obligated to insiders? Same thing. Now imagine that scenario with power. It will happen. 

Do yourself a favor: You are talking to religous zealots who do not wish to hear Engineering reality. 

IF they weren't hopeless hypocrites, they would be pushing for massive pumped Hydro and willing to personally pay for it, but... you know, their religion says dams are bad... so, go figure.  Dumbo bureaucrats unite...

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

39 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Do yourself a favor: You are talking to religous zealots who do not wish to hear Engineering reality. 

IF they weren't hopeless hypocrites, they would be pushing for massive pumped Hydro and willing to personally pay for it, but... you know, their religion says dams are bad... so, go figure.  Dumbo bureaucrats unite...

We already have plenty of dams to do pumped hydro.  Hoover is near empty.

 

Ward is prince of Alternative Facts. a.k.a. trump zealot.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.