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

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

I come on here and read from time to time and always wonder where Aubrey McClendon is. Well, heaven, to be exact, but were the mortal remains capable of a spin, his would be going like a whirling dervish. 

They say shale is dead, and it may be, but if it is dead then NG prices will go crazy. The Marcellus is full of NG but I don't believe a rig is working there. The Haynesville has some rigs going--halfheartedly. But the real volumes of methane come from drilling for oil in shale that also contains prodigious volumes of methane gas--which has unfortunately become synonymous with Satan's Fart. 

I bring up Aubrey because I liked him, but also because I can't help but wonder where the price of NG would be had Aubrey not gone hog-wild on fracking. NG was $12 when he began, thought to be so scarce that LNG import terminals were being built at great expense. By the time the import terminals were finished, the United States had NG blowing out every vent in the shale basins as one giant well after another came roaring to life. The LNG import business was finished before it began and it was Aubrey who called up Souki (Cheniere) and suggested that he turn his import terminal into an export terminal. Even as they spoke, the price of NG was falling. 

So the point is, no one has a clue where the price of NG goes from here. I've been watching it since 1950. There have been pipeline and wellhead tariffs placed on it, price supports put under deep drilling (>10,000 ft; 1980's), and as a consequence the price has gone up and down like a roller coaster--those were exogenous influences (governmental meddling) when NG was scarce. Now it is plentiful. But if shale oil dies, then excess methane dies with it. When all the risk-takers have gone broke, NG will have nothing but the steady-Eddies drilling for pure NG--nothing wrong with that but the price will have to edge up a great deal to make that profitable. The world community, helped along by the country of Guyana, is killing Exxon. It seems that all the new oil in the world comes with a side dish of this pesky gas! 

If the decomposition of the methane molecule by a hydrogen cell becomes a large-scale mechanism for energy production, the world will need lots of NG. If the price is >$6, the world will have to look elsewhere for a cheaper source. My gut feeling is that the world is going to find itself alarmingly short of oil at some point. And discover all over again that in order to get at the oil off the shore of Guyana, one has to handle unbelievable amounts of methane, just as with the shale basins. I imagine Suriname is going to be same chapter, different verse. 

I for one wish Aubrey were here. He might get it right or he might get it wrong but we sure as hell wouldn't be jawboning about the fires and EV's on an oil and gas forum. Aubrey McClendon got things done, and then he looked at the mess he'd made and grinned like a little boy. in the process, he became one of the world's great philanthropists. Aubrey believe in the clean energy derived from methane gas.

Maybe there's no collateral damage to be paid for keeping people alive to age 100, or from having a billion cows burping methane, or even from mining lithium, nickel, cobalt, and the truly rare earth elements, leaving giant scars in the earth. Perhaps self-driving cars and new cancer drugs will prevent death altogether. Maybe a hundred million solar panels really won't change the ambient earth temperature in that zone, thereby creating new climates. Maybe we're entering the Golden Age of Renewables and someone will actually figure out a way to create a car body out of something but petroleum products. And along the way, someone will figure out how to siphon off the methane emitted from the exhaust pipes of Homo sapiens--now up to ~12 billion--and those methane burps by the million cattle (about 1/3rd of greenhouse gases). 

But I doubt it. I think this renewables racket is an experiment that absolutely has to be run, just as I once had to build a Wheatstone Bridge. But like my building that damn bridge, I doubt that it's going to influence the lifespan of Homo erectus mammalians more than a mere second in their anthropomorphic intrusion upon geologic time.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Started much earlier. Massive fire suppression for many decades, so ANYONE was going to get bit in the ass with gargantuan fires.  Blaming anyone is frankly irresponsible if you asked me other than arrogantly trying to suppress all fire for decades.  Those responsible for said policies are all dead so... whistling in the dark here... 

Now add that fire is natural in these areas and we KNOW from science and historical fact that all these areas burned off regularly.  So, trying to 100% suppress that which naturally occurs is... how shall we put this... arrogance squared...

Now the FS response to just LET the fires rage out of control was beyond stupid for the last 2 decades. 

What we need are massive numbers of selective logging, controlled burns set right before the rainy season.  By the way this is how loggers used to do it.  Until the gargantuan fires in Oregon which wiped out million acres of prime giant old growth forest and the massive fires in Idaho.  After this happened in the 30's ALL fire was suppressed, so...

Agreed about the fire suppression, but CLINTON destroyed the roads, making current fire suppression impossible. Letting Millions of acres burn, after mismanaging for decades? Oh yeah, that was Yellowstone. I camped there the year before the fire and was severely scolded by a park ranger for using twigs that were lying dead on the ground to build my campfire, with tamarack I'd brought from home! We stood and argued face to face and I bet I sounded a bit like you do here, letting him know he was full of crap and their "policy" of accumulating mountains of branches and dead fall was going to bite them in the ass. A year later I was proved right. I'm confident that idiot got promoted. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

That's an excellent article from 2016. Thanks. To summarize (crudely), coal-to-gas switchover is compelling below $2.50/MMBtu and remains (barely) advantageous up to a crossover at $4.00/MMBtu, subject to large local variations. Today's price is $2.26 and it's not been above $2.75 in over a year. I picked my uneducated prognostication that NG will never be above $4.00 again before we started this discussion. I intended it as an upper bound for long-term economic planning for a new replacement plant cost. (The chart used a different cost measure ($ per 1000 BCF) and I'm too lazy to convert, so I used the HH charts on the OilPrice main page.)

BTU is the best metric but cubic feet is more convenient. It turns out (thanks to fracking) that currently natural gas has a higher BTU content per thousand cubic feet than historical because it is "wetter". Utilities don't complain, they have thermal systems, they need the BTU'S. Cheat sheet here. 

For contrast coal is about 20 million BTU per short ton and can cost between $10-50/ton based on quality. 

Now look at it by BTU'S And compare easily to natural gas

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ward Smith
Added link

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

26 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Agreed about the fire suppression, but CLINTON destroyed the roads, making current fire suppression impossible. Letting Millions of acres burn, after mismanaging for decades? Oh yeah, that was Yellowstone. I camped there the year before the fire and was severely scolded by a park ranger for using twigs that were lying dead on the ground to build my campfire, with tamarack I'd brought from home! We stood and argued face to face and I bet I sounded a bit like you do here, letting him know he was full of crap and their "policy" of accumulating mountains of branches and dead fall was going to bite them in the ass. A year later I was proved right. I'm confident that idiot got promoted. 

Well in fairness about destroying the roads... It costs money to maintain them.  🙄

What I disagree with is their requirements to maintain them... But some idiot in Klamath Falls Oregon theoretically showed that fish would not go through a round pipe so all the forest service roads had to have all their round pipes ripped out if they were anywhere near a fish bearing stream and square/rectangle ~bridges put in.  So, the effect of this idiocy forced all the old roads which needed ZERO maintenance to require VERY costly new ditching, piping.  The next moronic requirement is that a lot of older roads had smaller drainage pipes dumped under them and they plug which then backs up, overflows the road and road washes out.  "Genius" salmon idiots claimed these washouts( I kid you not) were inundating the streams with silt... Therefore even the drainage pipes which did NOT have to be removed, now needed to be replaced by LARGER diameter pipes(18" and 24" minimum now) and had to be inspected to make sure they did not plug and overflow the road. 

The end result of the above moronic "regulations" was that hundreds of thousands of miles of road had to be closed.  Then the last idiocy happened: Mandate turning old road back into "normal" nature.... instead of just ripping out the culverts and leaving the roads so in an emergency all one had to do was dump rock in a dry creek bed and drive equipment acros... but NO!  now the roads themselves had to be destroyed. 

So there you have it.  The cornocupia of stupidity regulations causing hundreds of thousands of miles of access roads to be destroyed which now means cannot get in to fight forest fires requiring expensive helicopters.  Oh yea, do not forget the forest fire regulations added on top where it is effectively illegal to use a Bulldozer to make firelines... It is now illegal to not have 5 trillion certificates to use a shovel, pulaski, and 6 trillion certs to use a chainsaw which means all of the VOLUNTEERS who by the hundred and in some cases by the thousand used to show up and do fireline emergency work, are now BARRED from doing anything other than handing out lunches...  Likewise the few volunteers who do get in, quit as they cannot put the time into getting all of these utterly absurd certificates. 

So, costs SKYROCKET and number of available people drop like a rock... Genius in action.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well in fairness about destroying the roads... It costs money to maintain them.  🙄

What I disagree with is their requirements to maintain them... But some idiot in Klamath Falls Oregon theoretically showed that fish would not go through a round pipe so all the forest service roads had to have all their round pipes ripped out if they were anywhere near a fish bearing stream and square/rectangle ~bridges put in.  So, the effect of this idiocy forced all the old roads which needed ZERO maintenance to require VERY costly new ditching, piping.  The next moronic requirement is that a lot of older roads had smaller drainage pipes dumped under them and they plug which then backs up, overflows the road and road washes out.  "Genius" salmon idiots claimed these washouts( I kid you not) were inundating the streams with silt... Therefore even the drainage pipes which did NOT have to be removed, now needed to be replaced by LARGER diameter pipes(18" and 24" minimum now) and had to be inspected to make sure they did not plug and overflow the road. 

The end result of the above moronic "regulations" was that hundreds of thousands of miles of road had to be closed.  Then the last idiocy happened: Mandate turning old road back into "normal" nature.... instead of just ripping out the culverts and leaving the roads so in an emergency all one had to do was dump rock in a dry creek bed and drive equipment acros... but NO!  now the roads themselves had to be destroyed. 

So there you have it.  The cornocupia of stupidity regulations causing hundreds of thousands of miles of access roads to be destroyed which now means cannot get in to fight forest fires requiring expensive helicopters.  Oh yea, do not forget the forest fire regulations added on top where it is effectively illegal to use a Bulldozer to make firelines... It is now illegal to not have 5 trillion certificates to use a shovel, pulaski, and 6 trillion certs to use a chainsaw which means all of the VOLUNTEERS who by the hundred and in some cases by the thousand used to show up and do fireline emergency work, are now BARRED from doing anything other than handing out lunches...  Likewise the few volunteers who do get in, quit as they cannot put the time into getting all of these utterly absurd certificates. 

So, costs SKYROCKET and number of available people drop like a rock... Genius in action.

I see you're in Washington, where I'm currently (not)enjoying 400 aqi smoke from Kalifornistan and Portlandia fires. Maybe when this is all over we can get together for some adult beverages. 

Recognize that the same leftists, who are oddly silent this weekend, believe our wonderful genius government needs to be further in charge of our lives! These bunglecrats can't find their assess in the dark with both hands, but they know better than us how to live our lives? I'm with you on their stupidity, I've observed it first hand. Sigh

BTW when I was younger I used to catch salmon bare handed that were hanging out in those ROUND culverts. They needed to go back to fish school I guess, or that moron in Oregon needs to be fired.

Edited September 12, 2020 by Ward Smith

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

12 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I see you're in Washington, where I'm currently (not)enjoying 400 aqi smoke from Kalifornistan and Portlandia fires. Maybe when this is all over we can get together for some adult beverages.

Well its over 300 ppm here so... the travel seems redundant for "clean air"  and yes, had salmon in the ditch where we used to live(Raging river watershed), but oh no, that horrid round culvert had to go! All so those ~10 salmon could swim upstream another 100 feet... Yes, less than a hundred feet before the the creek went dry...  So now there is a nice 3x3 VERY expensive box culvert that used to be round and that nice new "box" now has a weight limit of 25 tons sign on it so no major heavy equipment can pass over whereas the old round could take 50ton bulldozers driving over if it had to.  Progress!  Now they are thinking!  Make sure you cannot get a D8 in to fight a fire!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 9/8/2020 at 7:27 PM, markslawson said:

 

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.   

The fantasies started with his first posts. He needs to get real. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 9/8/2020 at 5:27 PM, markslawson said:

 

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. 

Texas is already well past your maximum comfort for renewable s this year and growing rapidly. When are these real problems going to show up? I want to mark it on my calendar.

So far this year:

Gas = 47.2%

Solar + Wind = 25%

Coal = 16.9%

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

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Texas is already well past your maximum comfort for renewable s this year and growing rapidly. When are these real problems going to show up? I want to mark it on my calendar.

So far this year:

Gas = 47.2%

Solar + Wind = 25%

Coal = 16.9%

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

 

I think the disconnect here is that the renewable skeptics are quoting the percentage of required max peak power capacity, while you are quoting the cumulative energy provided. They think that you begin to be in trouble when you depend on wind+solar for more than 20% of max peak. I can actually think of scenarios where you are in trouble when you depend on wind+solar for more than 0% of max peak, but they are fairly silly except as a thought experiment. In some fantasy world with an infinite amount of available capital, we would want to be able to provide 100% of peak power from NG peakers with 30 days of NG peak storage,  but those plants would end up running <1% of the time because we have enough wind+solar+battery. The way you resolve this disconnect is to develop and deploy practical long-term storage for wind+solar energy that is equivalent to our current capability to store NG.

[Wombat + 1,028]

17 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Started much earlier. Massive fire suppression for many decades, so ANYONE was going to get bit in the ass with gargantuan fires.  Blaming anyone is frankly irresponsible if you asked me other than arrogantly trying to suppress all fire for decades.  Those responsible for said policies are all dead so... whistling in the dark here... 

Now add that fire is natural in these areas and we KNOW from science and historical fact that all these areas burned off regularly.  So, trying to 100% suppress that which naturally occurs is... how shall we put this... arrogance squared...

Now the FS response to just LET the fires rage out of control was beyond stupid for the last 2 decades. 

What we need are massive numbers of selective logging, controlled burns set right before the rainy season.  By the way this is how loggers used to do it.  Until the gargantuan fires in Oregon which wiped out million acres of prime giant old growth forest and the massive fires in Idaho.  After this happened in the 30's ALL fire was suppressed, so...

I believe what you are saying footeab, but I still believe climate change plays a part, and would not be surprised if terrorism/anarchists may also have something to do with it. I have noticed here in Australia that the NUMBER of fires always seem to reach an extreme at the same time that the conditions are at their worse. It is as though the firebugs know how to cause the most damage and mayhem?

[markslawson + 1,057]

9 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I think the disconnect here is that the renewable skeptics are quoting the percentage of required max peak power capacity, while you are quoting the cumulative energy provided. They think that you begin to be in trouble when you depend on wind+solar for more than 20% of max peak. I can actually think of scenarios where you are in trouble when you depend on wind+solar for more than 0% of max peak, but they are fairly silly except as a thought experiment.

Dan - you misunderstand how it works. to get to a 20 per cent average penentration with wind at times you'd have 60 per cent and at other times nothing - or some mix like that, depending on the peaks and troughs. Wind generators have an average output of about one third of their rated capacity (give or take). The problem has always been that the the rest of the grid then has to be run around this variation, greater capacity transmission lines have to be built, to accommodate the peak output not the average, and so on. Batteries get around this problem, as I believe I've noted before, but at immense additional expense. Solar adds to the complication. American grids can ride out some of these problems by sending power to one another, but if they all start adopting the same policies then it could lead to real trouble.    

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 9/11/2020 at 11:05 AM, Meredith Poor said:

75Gw of solar is not going to make sense without a lot of storage, since most days Texas doesn't exceed a 70Gw peak.

Only just saw this but no matter, we can certainly agree on that. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Dan - you misunderstand how it works. to get to a 20 per cent average penentration with wind at times you'd have 60 per cent and at other times nothing - or some mix like that, depending on the peaks and troughs. Wind generators have an average output of about one third of their rated capacity (give or take). The problem has always been that the the rest of the grid then has to be run around this variation, greater capacity transmission lines have to be built, to accommodate the peak output not the average, and so on. Batteries get around this problem, as I believe I've noted before, but at immense additional expense. Solar adds to the complication. American grids can ride out some of these problems by sending power to one another, but if they all start adopting the same policies then it could lead to real trouble.    

I do understand that. I was just trying to reconcile the graph of Texas' 2020 electricity usage (More than 25% of electrical power this year was renewables) with the assertions that >20% of renewables will destabilize the grid (it did not).  You can take renewables as high as you want if you have enough fossil fuel plants to handle the load when renewables+battery are unavailable. This works only if you are willing to pay for (or in this case, you already paid for) a huge amount of fossil generating capacity that will be used at a low average capacity. You refer to this as "working around the problem". I think of it as using wind+solar when available to save money on fuel.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

American grids can ride out some of these problems by sending power to one another, but if they all start adopting the same policies then it could lead to real trouble.    

The Texas grid is stand alone. They do not send or get power from others. So the question stands. How is it they are having no problems with 25% renewables?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,554]

13 hours ago, Wombat said:

I believe what you are saying footeab, but I still believe climate change plays a part, and would not be surprised if terrorism/anarchists may also have something to do with it. I have noticed here in Australia that the NUMBER of fires always seem to reach an extreme at the same time that the conditions are at their worse. It is as though the firebugs know how to cause the most damage and mayhem?

Ohh he is speaking to the truth, there is no forest mgmt of dead timber what so ever. 

Nature at its finest,a undisturbrd eco system, In Oregon it almost a religion..a way of life, the state has been restoring apex predators back into the environment, wolves and mountain lions. To a large part of the population there just cute as kittens...cool to see until one runs into a pack of wolves or a sick lion...then not so cool.

There is so much overgrowth its unbelievable...the gorge wind which started this dried it out and power lines set it off...here I live in out in the burbs I will go out and take a pic of the environment.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[markslawson + 1,057]

6 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I do understand that. I was just trying to reconcile the graph of Texas' 2020 electricity usage (More than 25% of electrical power this year was renewables) with the assertions that >20% of renewables will destabilize the grid (it did not)

Fair point, I should have clarified - will tend to destabilise, or perhaps takes it out of its comfort zone. Beyond 20 per cent is a problem in other words. The Texan grid managers have managed to make it work but grids with that level of renewables and higher are far more difficult to manage and are more likely to fold to external events. This is essentially what seems to have happened with the Californian grid. As I noted batteries also greatly reduce the problem. Micro-girds (small towns too isolated for a main grid connection)  in Australia have managed 70 per cent penetration but those have been designed from the ground up to do so, and are small enough for batteries to make a real difference. Also the economics are different as they don't have to ship in diesel. Even then you do not build such networks without diesel plants capable of supplying power for the whole town as backup.  Doing the same for major grids would be horrifically expensive and complicated. Anyway, I hope that clarifies things. Leave it with you.   

[markslawson + 1,057]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Texas grid is stand alone. They do not send or get power from others. So the question stands. How is it they are having no problems with 25% renewables?

I see that they don't, but I overstated my case. As I noted to Dan C I should have said will tend to destabilise, or perhaps takes it out of its comfort zone. Beyond 20 per cent is a problem in other words. The Texan grid managers have managed to make it work but grids with that level of renewables and higher are far more difficult to manage and are more likely to fold to external events. This is essentially what seems to have happened with the Californian grid, if you will recall recent history. So far Texas has been lucky. Also, Texas got busy and cleaned up its act in other areas such as encouraging plants to better plan maintenance. You will find also that this business about all users being supplied all the time has been quietly dropped, as it has in Australia. No there are plans to boot major users off the network when demand and supply are stretched. Those users will have back-up diesel plants, all the in the name of a cleaner, greener future. Anyway, I hope that clarifies things. There are a couple more points in the stuff I wrote for Dan C if you're interested. Leave it with you.  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

16 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Fair point, I should have clarified - will tend to destabilise, or perhaps takes it out of its comfort zone. Beyond 20 per cent is a problem in other words. The Texan grid managers have managed to make it work but grids with that level of renewables and higher are far more difficult to manage and are more likely to fold to external events. This is essentially what seems to have happened with the Californian grid. As I noted batteries also greatly reduce the problem. Micro-girds (small towns too isolated for a main grid connection)  in Australia have managed 70 per cent penetration but those have been designed from the ground up to do so, and are small enough for batteries to make a real difference. Also the economics are different as they don't have to ship in diesel. Even then you do not build such networks without diesel plants capable of supplying power for the whole town as backup.  Doing the same for major grids would be horrifically expensive and complicated. Anyway, I hope that clarifies things. Leave it with you.   

What those small Australian towns did is exactly what will be required on the large scale to achieve a completely stable grid. You need enough "backup" capacity to handle the entire demand in those rare situations when renewables+battery are at zero. Basically, renewables cannot REPLACE any non-renewable generating capacity: that capacity must be there. But renewables can drive the load factor of those generators down to nearly zero. Those small Australian towns still have their diesel generators, but they run them only very rarely.

The reason that this is "out of the comfort zone" is that we are still thinking that any fossil generator must produce enough electricity to pay for itself. That was the historical situation, but that does not make it the only possible economic model.

California has screwed up its grid in ways that led to rolling blackouts twice, once in 2001 and once in 2020. Both cases were caused by not being conservative enough during a major transition, where the regulators and legislators believed the rosiest predictions about the new regime. In 2001, the transition was to a "free market" in electricity. In 2020, it was a transition to solar+battery. In each case, we started dismantling the old system before we had proven that the new system worked.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

 

California has screwed up its grid in ways that led to rolling blackouts twice, once in 2001 and once in 2020. Both cases were caused by not being conservative enough during a major transition, where the regulators and legislators believed the rosiest predictions about the new regime. In 2001, the transition was to a "free market" in electricity. In 2020, it was a transition to solar+battery. In each case, we started dismantling the old system before we had proven that the new system worked.

A free market with criminals like Enron. But for their criminal activity there would have been no rolling blackouts in 2001.

The most damning revelations concern Enron's secret role in creating artificial power shortages in California, helping to trigger an energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 which cost residents billions of dollars in surcharges.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/feb/05/enron.usnews

 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 9/11/2020 at 7:30 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees. 

State of Oregon has nearly ZERO acres under control where the fires are burning .  This is a FEDERAL issue.  Same goes for the fires in California and Washington.  All federal lands.  While the states in question do have some lands under THEIR jurisdiction they are far superior lands near the coast where there is far more water.  Most of the lands under question 1) had vast fire suppression tactics used for last 70 years and then 2) a gigantic beetle infestation which has killed off nearly every tree not growing in a well watered river valley EAST of the Cascade Mountains Crest and even up to the Crest.  3) Forest service DID NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO CUT these beetle infested trees.  For instance I have gone hiking my entire life and everywhere we go hiking all the trees are dead and half of them have been burned off.  Chelan, Entiat, Wenatchee. So, from my perspective we have another ~5-->10 years of all these medium fires as old fire lines have been breaking up the beetle infestation, and then the fires will "disappear" for a couple decades.  You will note Idaho is not burning... why?  It completely burned itself off a decade ago with Millions of acres burned(all FEDERAL land).  They just let it burn other than a few select areas.  Now they are having an Elk explosion... Same goes for Eastern eastern Oregon...

These fires are 100% the fault of Feds NOT allowing loggers to log infested trees.  Why?  "nature"

PS: All these federal lands should have been handed over to the states in question 100 years ago.  Then you could have blamed  them for THEIR abysmal policies....

PPS: @Boat Thanks for spewing your ignorance regarding western states situation.  So enlightening when in fact it is ignorant city slicker utopian dumb asses who are 100% directly responsible for these moronic fire fighting policies in Washington DC and NOT rednecks who want to selectively log as the SCIENCE tells us to do.  Note all Private land is selectively logged and Is NOT crown burning East of the Cascades... Why?  They selectively log and brush burn... << Shock >> doing that which is rational...

So trumps fault not California, that won't go over well with the cult; they want to blame California.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A free market with criminals like Enron. But for their criminal activity there would have been no rolling blackouts in 2001.

The most damning revelations concern Enron's secret role in creating artificial power shortages in California, helping to trigger an energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 which cost residents billions of dollars in surcharges.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/feb/05/enron.usnews

 

 

Well, maybe. There was an undiscovered flaw in the system, and the result was rolling blackouts. Enron illegally exploited that flaw. It is reasonably clear that the flaw could have been exploited legally instead. It's easy to blame the most egregious offender, and they deserve the blame, but the legislature and regulators built a house of cards based on rosy predictions and it got blown down.  In 2020, we got too optimistic, and then ended up with the a record-setting unprecedented demand event about two months before we got our shiny new battery in place, so we had two days with about 6 hours each of rolling blackouts. This may actually have been a good thing. If the battery had already been up, we would not have learned the lesson.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

18 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Well, maybe. There was an undiscovered flaw in the system, and the result was rolling blackouts. Enron illegally exploited that flaw. It is reasonably clear that the flaw could have been exploited legally instead. It's easy to blame the most egregious offender, and they deserve the blame, but the legislature and regulators built a house of cards based on rosy predictions and it got blown down.  In 2020, we got too optimistic, and then ended up with the a record-setting unprecedented demand event about two months before we got our shiny new battery in place, so we had two days with about 6 hours each of rolling blackouts. This may actually have been a good thing. If the battery had already been up, we would not have learned the lesson.

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/

 

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

35 minutes 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/

 

 

Yep, I overstated the 2020 event. I would probably been more precise but the upshot is the same: not a big deal. The Fire shutoffs are a lot bigger.

For the 2000 blackouts, I was not here in CA, so all I know about them is from recently reading the Wikipedia article. Basically, the free-market boosters convinced the state legislature that consumer rates would not spike. the legislature believed them and therefore wrote a rate cap into the law. The utilities were squeezed between free market supply and rate-capped demand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–01_California_electricity_crisis

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 9/12/2020 at 9:24 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

I think the disconnect here is that the renewable skeptics are quoting the percentage of required max peak power capacity, while you are quoting the cumulative energy provided. They think that you begin to be in trouble when you depend on wind+solar for more than 20% of max peak. I can actually think of scenarios where you are in trouble when you depend on wind+solar for more than 0% of max peak, but they are fairly silly except as a thought experiment. In some fantasy world with an infinite amount of available capital, we would want to be able to provide 100% of peak power from NG peakers with 30 days of NG peak storage,  but those plants would end up running <1% of the time because we have enough wind+solar+battery. The way you resolve this disconnect is to develop and deploy practical long-term storage for wind+solar energy that is equivalent to our current capability to store NG.

Batteries have been making a lot of advances IF you believe all the news. I will believe it when I see the production at the correct cost. It is promised, but first show the actual deals and the production capacity over time. There will be a lot more batteries desired than are available, for quite a long time methinks. Especially when you try to supply trucks with batteries in addition to solar and wind backup! Good luck. I am good with it at the right price, which is that of natural gas power. 

[Boat + 1,323]

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. 

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. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Boat