Renewables, the Grid, and Blackouts

[JoMack + 547]

When the rolling blackouts were happening in California, they decried it was due to "peak demand" and wildfires, and the negligence of the utility company, PG&E, but narrie a peep about the grid itself.  Not the deteriorating grid which it is, but reasons that have more to do with renewables than you'd think.  Peak demand is definitely a factor, but there was an article today on oilprce.com and a piece is pasted below.  It is interesting, and our reduction in oil, gas, coal and nuclear may well have more of an impact than is being discussed.  In fact, it's not discussed at all.  

Of course, that's because the powers that be, if they understand what's going on at all, believe it's just to hard to explain because we are ill-equipped to understand, you know,  since it's just so way too complicated for us mortals.  Of course, the answer is that they don't want the public to know what's going to happen and it's not too long into the future.  At the rate the Biden Administration is going to shut down the energy sector it won't be long before we'll be feeling like California. 

So, here's the piece.  The entire article is on the site so most of you have probably seen it, but I thought it should be highlighted so it can be a point of discussion in case you run into a climate change warrior or the NIMBY "I demand renewable" crowd.  

Earlier this month, something happened in Europe. It didn’t get as much media attention as the EU’s massive funding plans for its energy transition, but it was arguably as important, if not more. A fault occurred at a substation in Croatia and caused an overload in parts of the grid, which spread beyond the country’s borders. This created a domino effect that caused a blackout and prompted electricity supply reductions as far as France and Italy. The problem was dealt with, but it’s only a matter of time before more problems like this occur—the reason: the rise of renewables in the energy mix.

Bloomberg reported on the incident citing several sources from Europe’s utility sector. While no one would directly blame the blackout and the increased risk of more blackouts on renewables, it is evident that Europe’s change in the energy mix is raising this risk.

The problem has to do with grid frequency. Normally, it is 50 hertz, Bloomberg’s Jesper Starn, Brian Parkin, and Irina Vilcu explain. If the frequency deviates from this level, connected equipment gets damaged, and power outages follow. The frequency is normally maintained by the inertia created by the spinning turbines of fossil fuel—or nuclear, or hydro—power plants. With Europe cutting its coal and nuclear capacity, this inertia declines as well, exposing the grid to frequency deviations.

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

Great post. As most of you know, the "California Plan" which is being used as a format by Mr. Biden for a national movement, is to a) decommission natural gas utility plants, while, b) building out huge wind and solar farms feeding into, c) massive lithium-ion battery concourses built by Tesla. 

There was, back in the summer or fall of 2020, a great discussion about just this aspect: intrinsic inertia from turbine spin. There was a fellow from San Francisco who was quite knowledgeable about this and swore that inertia could be inputted artificially. I think Meredith Poor or Foote--both of whom are very smart on this concept--chimed in. 

But you're right, there are going to be incredible growing pains getting from where we are to where Mr. Biden and all the green energy people want to see us. This inertia problem, along with the possibility of a solar-blocking process (a volcano going off in the Pacific Rim) or a wind turbine destruction (a lip of the Monterey Canyon flaking off, triggering a tsunami, or an earthquake just about anywhere), should be backed up by traditional natural gas utility plants that are already in place. 

But that's not part of the California Plan. They're decommissioning the Moss Landing natural gas plant at the same time they're building the lithium battery concourse. Just down the road, they're decommissioning the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Utility Plant--which actually may make sense since it is on the spiderweb of fault lines suturing California together. But the NG decommissioning makes no sense whatsoever since methane is the cheapest and most reliable way to back up the grid. Not only that but methane gas to hydrogen is carbon-neutral and the technology is coming fast.

Oh well, time will tell. I hope there isn't a mass dying-off in the process.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Is that what happened in Pakistan, when there were outlandish reports that the U.S. military was in there on "special ops"?  I don't recall if it was on the 8th or not, but the news out of Pakistan at the time said it was due to a grid frequency problem.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, JoMack said:

When the rolling blackouts were happening in California, they decried it was due to "peak demand" and wildfires, and the negligence of the utility company, PG&E, but narrie a peep about the grid itself.

 

Please stop spreading this sillyness. We have had a grand total of two days during the last 20 years on which there were "rolling blackouts." Less than 800,000 customers were affected, not all at the same time, and any one customer was affected for less than one hour total. You and everybody else makes it sound like this happens a lot in California. It does not. Exceptional events that affect generation capacity in overstress systems have caused massive outages in many systems in many places, and California is no exception. In the East, we had shutdowns at one point when a river froze up and blocked the cooling water to a nuclear plant.

What we do have is PSPS ("Public Safety Power Shutoffs"). The power company shuts off power during "fire weather" ( hot, dry, and windy all at the same time) so they will not be sued for starting a wildfire. No amount of extra generating capacity or a better grid would keep this from happening. The only way to stop PSPS would be to pass laws that acknowledge that the damage caused by a wildfire is not completely or even mostly the fault of the power company even when the proximate cause is power company equipment.

[turbguy + 1,401]

 

4 hours ago, JoMack said:

The problem has to do with grid frequency. Normally, it is 50 hertz, Bloomberg’s Jesper Starn, Brian Parkin, and Irina Vilcu explain. If the frequency deviates from this level, connected equipment gets damaged, and power outages follow. The frequency is normally maintained by the inertia created by the spinning turbines of fossil fuel—or nuclear, or hydro—power plants. With Europe cutting its coal and nuclear capacity, this inertia declines as well, exposing the grid to frequency deviations.

 

You ARE aware that recent wind turbines are able to deliver CONSIDERABLY MORE of their rotating inertia to the grid than synchronous machines, no?  All thanks to power electronics and DFIG's. 

Also be aware that plants running "pedal to the metal" (eg, Nuclear plants), CANNOT participate in grid frequency regulation (at least in frequency drop situations).  The "main purpose" of the generation side (aka, BOP, Balance of Plant), is to provide a pressure reducing valve for the reactor!

I can speak to utilities that shut off lighting and air conditioning at plants and offices on hot summer days, and then begin shutting off "interruptible" industrial customers (who pay a discount for that category) with some regularity.

Edited February 1, 2021 by turbguy

[JoMack + 547]

51 minutes ago, turbguy said:

 

You ARE aware that recent wind turbines are able to deliver CONSIDERABLY MORE of their rotating inertia to the grid than synchronous machines, no?  All thanks to power electronics and DFIG's. 

Also be aware that plants running "pedal to the metal" (eg, Nuclear plants), CANNOT participate in grid frequency regulation (at least in frequency drop situations).  The "main purpose" of the generation side (aka, BOP, Balance of Plant), is to provide a pressure reducing valve for the reactor!

I can speak to utilities that shut off lighting and air conditioning at plants and offices on hot summer days, and then begin shutting off "interruptible" industrial customers (who pay a discount for that category) with some regularity.

You ARE aware that this information came from Bloomberg?  

[JoMack + 547]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please stop spreading this sillyness. We have had a grand total of two days during the last 20 years on which there were "rolling blackouts." Less than 800,000 customers were affected, not all at the same time, and any one customer was affected for less than one hour total. You and everybody else makes it sound like this happens a lot in California. It does not. Exceptional events that affect generation capacity in overstress systems have caused massive outages in many systems in many places, and California is no exception. In the East, we had shutdowns at one point when a river froze up and blocked the cooling water to a nuclear plant.

What we do have is PSPS ("Public Safety Power Shutoffs"). The power company shuts off power during "fire weather" ( hot, dry, and windy all at the same time) so they will not be sued for starting a wildfire. No amount of extra generating capacity or a better grid would keep this from happening. The only way to stop PSPS would be to pass laws that acknowledge that the damage caused by a wildfire is not completely or even mostly the fault of the power company even when the proximate cause is power company equipment.

Hmmm, I guess Governor Newsom disagrees with your analysis:

 

he Democratic governor said while weather was uncontrollable, the state should have been better prepared to handle the extreme conditions. He said his administration was working with businesses and consumers throughout California, asking them to limit energy consumption from 3 to 10 p.m.

“Even with all of that, we are likely to fall short,” Newsom said, adding that California is expected to fall 4,400 megawatts shy on Monday of what’s needed to keep the lights on for potentially millions of households.

Steve Berberich, the chief executive of the California Independent System Operator, told reporters that an estimated 3.3 million homes and businesses would likely be subjected to power outages late Monday, which would in one of the largest blackouts in state history.

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

31 minutes ago, JoMack said:

You ARE aware that this information came from Bloomberg?  

Who cares.  My actual experience IN THE INDUSTRY is more real to me than a source who only knows electricity works when they throw a light switch, and gets disturbed when it doesn't work.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please stop spreading this sillyness. We have had a grand total of two days during the last 20 years on which there were "rolling blackouts." Less than 800,000 customers were affected, not all at the same time, and any one customer was affected for less than one hour total. You and everybody else makes it sound like this happens a lot in California. It does not. Exceptional events that affect generation capacity in overstress systems have caused massive outages in many systems in many places, and California is no exception. In the East, we had shutdowns at one point when a river froze up and blocked the cooling water to a nuclear plant.

What we do have is PSPS ("Public Safety Power Shutoffs"). The power company shuts off power during "fire weather" ( hot, dry, and windy all at the same time) so they will not be sued for starting a wildfire. No amount of extra generating capacity or a better grid would keep this from happening. The only way to stop PSPS would be to pass laws that acknowledge that the damage caused by a wildfire is not completely or even mostly the fault of the power company even when the proximate cause is power company equipment.

It's not my job to put down California, but they are on a collision course with disaster. As was pointed out ad infinitum in the late summer/early fall of 2020--when it seemed that the whole state was burning--the power lines in much of northern Ca are old. When the wiring and cladding become stretched and taut from low temperature, then sag during heat, given enough years that material becomes frayed, conductivity extends through the cladding, and a sag against a dry limb produces a fire. Instead of spending the money to bury a 100 miles of line a week, they're spending the money to develop energy in a different way . . . sent out over the same old grid. 

Not to pick on your state, but the carbonaceous material sent into the troposphere last year was enormous. Want a carbon tax? Okay, you've got it, only we're counting all carbon . . . including that sent into the air from your wildfires. You talk about silliness, well this business of using a frayed old grid system is the absolute epitome of stupidity. Sorry, but it just is. 

Okay, so you're not in charge, I get it, but you folks are going to have to rise up and do something. What is likely to happen--I'm not saying it will definitely happen but there's a a pretty good chance of it--is you decommission all your NG plants, build in great solar/wind collection systems that produce energy stored in lithium-ion concourses only to have an unexpected problem develop out of the blue. A few hot days, a bunch of wildfires, an unexpected problem, then a flock of old people without AC in a nursing home, or a bunch of people in a big dialysis center, with no electricity. And guess what, there's no backup system. You call Wyoming, which is the state where you order electricity like it's a Big Mac, only they need their electricity . . . just like last year. And it should be embarrassing to the extreme that your state boasts a low carbon footprint but has no trouble ordering electricity from Wyoming that was created from a high-sulfur coal-burning utility plant. Gimme a break! 

You have--at this point--two choices, California. You can either spout stuff like, "Please stop spreading this silliness, we have had a grand total of two days during the last 20 years on which were rolling blackouts," or you can stand up to the governor and say, "We're about to get in bad, bad trouble." Take your pick. If you are representative of the people of California, it would appear that you already have. And I'm saying that as graciously as possible.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

It's not my job to put down California, but they are on a collision course with disaster. As was pointed out ad infinitum in the late summer/early fall of 2020--when it seemed that the whole state was burning--the power lines in much of northern Ca are old. When the wiring and cladding become stretched and taut from low temperature, then sag during heat, given enough years that material becomes frayed, conductivity extends through the cladding, and a sag against a dry limb produces a fire. Instead of spending the money to bury a 100 miles of line a week, they're spending the money to develop energy in a different way . . . sent out over the same old grid. 

Not to pick on your state, but the carbonaceous material sent into the troposphere last year was enormous. Want a carbon tax? Okay, you've got it, only we're counting all carbon . . . including that sent into the air from your wildfires. You talk about silliness, well this business of using a frayed old grid system is the absolute epitome of stupidity. Sorry, but it just is. 

Okay, so you're not in charge, I get it, but you folks are going to have to rise up and do something. What is likely to happen--I'm not saying it will definitely happen but there's a a pretty good chance of it--is you decommission all your NG plants, build in great solar/wind collection systems that produce energy stored in lithium-ion concourses only to have an unexpected problem develop out of the blue. A few hot days, a bunch of wildfires, an unexpected problem, then a flock of old people without AC in a nursing home, or a bunch of people in a big dialysis center, with no electricity. And guess what, there's no backup system. You call Wyoming, which is the state where you order electricity like it's a Big Mac, only they need their electricity . . . just like last year. And it should be embarrassing to the extreme that your state boasts a low carbon footprint but has no trouble ordering electricity from Wyoming that was created from a high-sulfur coal-burning utility plant. Gimme a break! 

You have--at this point--two choices, California. You can either spout stuff like, "Please stop spreading this silliness, we have had a grand total of two days during the last 20 years on which were rolling blackouts," or you can stand up to the governor and say, "We're about to get in bad, bad trouble." Take your pick. If you are representative of the people of California, it would appear that you already have. And I'm saying that as graciously as possible.

I lived in California most of the first half of my life and don't recall any blackouts. I have experienced scheduled blackouts in Eastvale California at my daughters home. They are not near any forest at all. Dan doesn't believe me though. California is going down, because of its far left government along with Illinois, where I live now, and several other states are well on their way. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please stop spreading this sillyness. We have had a grand total of two days during the last 20 years on which there were "rolling blackouts." Less than 800,000 customers were affected, not all at the same time, and any one customer was affected for less than one hour total. You and everybody else makes it sound like this happens a lot in California. It does not. Exceptional events that affect generation capacity in overstress systems have caused massive outages in many systems in many places, and California is no exception.

Dan - what you say is correct to a certain extent but, unfortunately for the renewables lobby, there is now considerable evidence that grids everywhere are becoming more difficult to manage due to the current enthusiasm for intermittent power supplies. In  Australia there is an Energy Security Board which has expressed concern over the increasing number of events requiring intervention. The government is making some effort to counter this by building new gas plants, as well as improve networks and so on.. basically rather than deny that grids are becoming more erratic and unreliable due to renewables it is better to acknowledge this and spend the money needed to make them stable while still accommodating renewables. There is now no hope that people will see sense and get rid of renewables, so we have to adapt the grids. 

[turbguy + 1,401]

4 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

You call Wyoming, which is the state where you order electricity like it's a Big Mac, only they need their electricity . . . just like last year. And it should be embarrassing to the extreme that your state boasts a low carbon footprint but has no trouble ordering electricity from Wyoming that was created from a high-sulfur coal-burning utility plant. Gimme a break! 

 

Ahhh.. Wyoming's PRB coal is low-sulfer.  It was practically worthless before environmental regs started reacting to "acid rain".  Remember?

Edited February 2, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,401]

Grid frequency is maintained by fossil and hydro plants predominantly via speed governors on the prime movers that are adjusted via operational command, not "rotating inertia".

Nuclear plants are operated via initial steam pressure (reactor pressure) governors, with a fall back to speed governors if frequency rises.  If frequency (speed) drops at a nuc plant, it has very little additional generating margin, and will trip off-line once frequency drops to about 95% (or raises to about 105%) of rated.  Almost all synchronous machines have such limits.

That narrow frequency band is why you cannot "extract" the major portion of rotating inertia from synchronous machines, without them disappearing from the grid.

If frequency begins to decay, the speed governors sense that and increase mass flow through the prime mover to compensate, IF there is any mass flow available to safely increase with.  There are some minor tricks, such as cutting out feedwater heaters at a significant heat rate penalty, or shoving more fuel into a gas turbine at the risk of overfiring.  If not, then the ONLY other solution is to shed load.

Edited February 2, 2021 by turbguy

[LANDMAN X + 181]

25 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Ahhh.. Wyoming's PRB coal is low-sulfer.  It was practically worthless before environmental regs started reacting to "acid rain".  Remember?

Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is shipped all over the country.  Saw miles of trains while working there several years ago in Campbell county.  Huge open mines with trucks the size of buildings.  The coal is considered high in sulfer and high in all sorts of junk... especially heat content, however,  remember,  newer technology on environmental scrubbers in coal plants sucks a lot of that junk.   North Dakota lignite coal is low-sulfer and lower heat content.  Why are they shutting down coal plants in ND when very little population around them?  Wouldn't it make more sense to close the ones around urban areas?    

[turbguy + 1,401]

1 hour ago, LANDMAN X said:

Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is shipped all over the country.  Saw miles of trains while working there several years ago in Campbell county.  Huge open mines with trucks the size of buildings.  The coal is considered high in sulfer and high in all sorts of junk... especially heat content, however,  remember,  newer technology on environmental scrubbers in coal plants sucks a lot of that junk.   North Dakota lignite coal is low-sulfer and lower heat content.  Why are they shutting down coal plants in ND when very little population around them?  Wouldn't it make more sense to close the ones around urban areas?    

Wrong, on several measures. I suggest you go here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Powder River Basin (PRB) coal is classified as "sub-bituminous" and contains an average of approximately 8,500 btu/lb, with low sulfur. Contrast this with eastern, Appalachian bituminous coal containing an average of 12,500 btu/lb and high sulfur. PRB coal was essentially worthless until air pollution emissions from power plants (primarily sulfur dioxide, or "SO₂") became a concern. A coal-fired plant designed to burn Appalachian coal must be modified to remove SO₂ at a cost estimated in 1999 to be around $322 per ton of SO₂. If it switched to burning PRB coal, the cost dropped to $113 per ton of SO₂ removed. Removal is accomplished by installing scrubbers.^[5]

So, less sulfur to remove via scrubbers (cheaper, and less of a heat rate penalty), and less heat content per pound (you gotta move more to get the same heat release).  Then there are low ash fusion temperatures than eastern coals, which caused many coal plants a HUGE amount of grief (think obsidian-coated boiler tubing, not good for heat transfer), and coal dust combustibility issues which caused MANY fires within plants.

Coal plants are being shut down (retired) for predominantly two reasons:

1. MATS (and other environmental) regulation that required excessive capital investment (and heat rate penalty) to adhere to.

2. Competition from cheaper fuels (eg, nat gas).  Plants near refineries are able to survive (to a degree) via consuming waste pet coke from the refinery.

Yes, it's shipped back east in huge quantities.  I remember a plant in Ohio that received PRB coal via train to Lake Superior, then loaded onto barges, then offloaded in IL, then railroaded to Detroit, where is was loaded AGAIN onto barges, then delivered to the plant (whew)...

LIGNITE!?!  That "fuel" is as close to burning dirt as you can get (if it doesn't spontaneously combust during handling and transport first). 

You ever try to extinguish a fire in a coal bunker?  Two words, IM POSSIBLE!  You must dump the inventory of the bunker.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by turbguy

[JoMack + 547]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

Dan - what you say is correct to a certain extent but, unfortunately for the renewables lobby, there is now considerable evidence that grids everywhere are becoming more difficult to manage due to the current enthusiasm for intermittent power supplies. In  Australia there is an Energy Security Board which has expressed concern over the increasing number of events requiring intervention. The government is making some effort to counter this by building new gas plants, as well as improve networks and so on.. basically rather than deny that grids are becoming more erratic and unreliable due to renewables it is better to acknowledge this and spend the money needed to make them stable while still accommodating renewables. There is now no hope that people will see sense and get rid of renewables, so we have to adapt the grids. 

Since Biden revoked the cross border permit for Keystone XL, people are starting to talk about energy.  Which is a good thing.  Unfortunately, in one major newspaper that has commentary a large portion of the people were for its demise.  It is amazing that from a widespread video by Al Gore and Bill "the Science Guy" who performed a bogus experiment on CO2 and a thermometer  that showed the world that climate change was real, they turned policies about energy on its head. Then Al Gore took that fake elementary experiment and produced a movie called "An Inconvenient Truth".  Of course, his dire predictions didn't occur so he made another movie "An Inconvenient Sequel:  Truth to Power".  

Today, we're watching Biden and his Congress and sycophants taking measures against the fossil fuel industry that go beyond any measure of the extreme and are placing the U.S. into some serious complications for the country and our national security.  At some point, we have to ask what on earth is going on?  Why are we doing this since renewables are not reliable (nuclear aside), not sustainable, and will devastate the economy if politicians and environmentalists continue to take us down this path.  Biden is getting a  lot of pressure right now from all sides to reinstate the permit, but will the left let him?  If they do, it will be a win for energy.  Not a huge win, but at this point I'd take anything.

 

[LANDMAN X + 181]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

1 hour ago, LANDMAN X said:

Wyoming Powder River Basin coal is shipped all over the country.  Saw miles of trains while working there several years ago in Campbell county.  Huge open mines with trucks the size of buildings.  The coal is considered high in sulfer and high in all sorts of junk... especially heat content, however,  remember,  newer technology on environmental scrubbers in coal plants sucks a lot of that junk.   North Dakota lignite coal is low-sulfer and lower heat content.  Why are they shutting down coal plants in ND when very little population around them?  Wouldn't it make more sense to close the ones around urban areas?    

Wrong, on several measures. I suggest you go here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Powder River Basin (PRB) coal is classified as "sub-bituminous" and contains an average of approximately 8,500 btu/lb, with low sulfur. Contrast this with eastern, Appalachian bituminous coal containing an average of 12,500 btu/lb and high sulfur. PRB coal was essentially worthless until air pollution emissions from power plants (primarily sulfur dioxide, or "SO₂") became a concern. A coal-fired plant designed to burn Appalachian coal must be modified to remove SO₂ at a cost estimated in 1999 to be around $322 per ton of SO₂. If it switched to burning PRB coal, the cost dropped to $113 per ton of SO₂ removed. Removal is accomplished by installing scrubbers.^[5]

So, less sulfur to remove via scrubbers (cheaper, and less of a heat rate penalty), and less heat content per pound (you gotta move more to get the same heat release).  Then there are low ash fusion temperatures than eastern coals, which caused many coal plants a HUGE amount of grief (think obsidian-coated boiler tubing, not good for heat transfer), and coal dust combustibility issues which caused MANY fires within plants.

Coal plants are being shut down (retired) for predominantly two reasons:

1. MATS (and other environmental) regulation that required excessive capital investment (and heat rate penalty) to adhere to.

Turbguy, have you studied history going back few thousand years?  Notice all those cold periods followed by warm periods.  Check Greenland cores out of ice going back several thousands years.  Question?  how many volcanoes in the last 50 years have shot more sulfrer, CO2, carbon or whatever junk goes up with them than mankind combined today?  Just one in SE Asia around 1990's (Pinto?), buried a US base with over 50 feet of volcanic fly ash?  shot more industrial waste, chemicals, CO2, sulfer, junk and whatever comes out of them, than all of mankind's total industrial waste piled up to this today...figure that one out?   Mankind can not effect climates.  Nature will and always will.   

[LANDMAN X + 181]

 

Got the name wrong.  Mt. Pinatubo erupted 

Clark Air Base and Subic Bay were symbols of America’s global might. Then the Cold War ended. Mt. Pinatubo erupted. They closed. Now China is the unassailable power in these seas.
 

CLARK FREEPORT, Philippines—The tarnished carcasses of old fighter planes litter the landscape here, relics of what once was the biggest American air base outside the United States. In the Cold War days, combat aircraft and transports would take off in their hundreds, heading for targets from the Middle East to Vietnam to Korea. But these days, as new Cold Wars loom on the horizon with Russia and especially China, this historic former base is a symbol of emptiness in American defense policy.

The storied parade ground is still here, an expanse of greensward over which generals once presided as the base grew from an old Spanish cavalry post in 1898 to a symbol of global U.S. power. 

ADVERTISEMENT

As tremors in mid-June 1991 shook Mount Pinatubo, looming ominously 10 miles to the west, a U.S. Geological Survey team warned of one of history’s most dramatic volcanic blasts. The American commander, Air Force Major General William Studer, ordered the withdrawal of all 14,500 troops and civilians along with almost all the planes two days before the first of 42 eruptions in three days coughed up a firestorm of lava, mud and dust.

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

1 hour ago, LANDMAN X said:

Turbguy, have you studied history going back few thousand years?  Notice all those cold periods followed by warm periods.  Check Greenland cores out of ice going back several thousands years.  Question?  how many volcanoes in the last 50 years have shot more sulfrer, CO2, carbon or whatever junk goes up with them than mankind combined today?  Just one in SE Asia around 1990's (Pinto?), buried a US base with over 50 feet of volcanic fly ash?  shot more industrial waste, chemicals, CO2, sulfer, junk and whatever comes out of them, than all of mankind's total industrial waste piled up to this today...figure that one out?   Mankind can not effect climates.  Nature will and always will.   

I am merely stating the truth about coals, correcting your misunderstandings.

We have no control (that I know of) over volcanism.  We have some control over our own emissions.  Do you have any idea how many heat engines worldwide are operating, right at this moment?

Millions! 

Edited February 2, 2021 by turbguy

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 hours ago, JoMack said:

Hmmm, I guess Governor Newsom disagrees with your analysis:

 

he Democratic governor said while weather was uncontrollable, the state should have been better prepared to handle the extreme conditions. He said his administration was working with businesses and consumers throughout California, asking them to limit energy consumption from 3 to 10 p.m.

“Even with all of that, we are likely to fall short,” Newsom said, adding that California is expected to fall 4,400 megawatts shy on Monday of what’s needed to keep the lights on for potentially millions of households.

Steve Berberich, the chief executive of the California Independent System Operator, told reporters that an estimated 3.3 million homes and businesses would likely be subjected to power outages late Monday, which would in one of the largest blackouts in state history.

 

This was a predicted number, not what actually occurred. During emergencies, the Governor of almost any state advertises the worst-case projections in an attempt to get the population to take the situation seriously. After the event, the actual numbers are known. You can fine them in this report:

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Preliminary-Root-Cause-Analysis-Rotating-Outages-August-2020.pdf

On 14 August 2020, 491,000 customers were affected.  On 15 August 2020, 321,000 customers were affected.

We did not have brown-outs, (voltage and frequency drops) because the regulator authority required the power companies to institute these rolling blackouts instead.

Yes, California has problems. My objection to your posts is that you throw all of our separate problems into one pot and then blame them all on renewables. A fanatic greenie would throw them all into one big pot and then blame them on greedy capitalists. Each problem needs to be addressed separately. The biggest problem is the PSPS problem. It affects more people for longer and it is hard to fix. But you and the entire "renewables are bad" crowd focus on the rolling blackouts, which are basically a non-problem that is fairly easy to fix. The fix is to not retire NG plants faster than they are being replaced by batteries.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Dan - what you say is correct to a certain extent but, unfortunately for the renewables lobby, there is now considerable evidence that grids everywhere are becoming more difficult to manage due to the current enthusiasm for intermittent power supplies. In  Australia there is an Energy Security Board which has expressed concern over the increasing number of events requiring intervention. The government is making some effort to counter this by building new gas plants, as well as improve networks and so on.. basically rather than deny that grids are becoming more erratic and unreliable due to renewables it is better to acknowledge this and spend the money needed to make them stable while still accommodating renewables. There is now no hope that people will see sense and get rid of renewables, so we have to adapt the grids. 

I do not deny that grids are becoming unreliable. I don't even deny that renewables can make grid management more complex and therefore more unreliable. My problem is  thoughtless anti-renewable propaganda that conflates PSPS events with rolling blackouts. We need to understand what is really happening in order to really fix it.

I also have a problem with folks who think inertial storage is some sort of magic wand that stabilizes the grid, while ignoring batteries. Inertial stabilization is a heck of a lot better than nothing, but batteries are a whole lot better. They store a whole lot more energy and they can react instantly.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I lived in California most of the first half of my life and don't recall any blackouts. I have experienced scheduled blackouts in Eastvale California at my daughters home. They are not near any forest at all. Dan doesn't believe me though. California is going down, because of its far left government along with Illinois, where I live now, and several other states are well on their way. 

Please provide a reference to a published source (such as a local newspaper in Eastvale) that mentions a blackout caused by a shortfall in supply. We had them in 2001 (Enron playing games in the power market). After that, I am aware of no documented scheduled outages due to supply shortfall until August 2020. If such an event happened, it would have been reported. I was not there and you were, so you are in better position to find such a published report.

Here is a report on scheduled power outage for a required infrastructure upgrade in Eastvale. This was not caused by a supply shortfall, and no amount of excess generating capacity would have prevented the need for this aoutage:

https://www.eastvaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/244/

Edited February 2, 2021 by Dan Clemmensen

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

No one that I know got very vocal about the California plan until it became, almost overnight, the Biden plan. I've lived in California. The day the sale of my house closed there was fire to the south, to the east, and to the north. I'm pretty sure there would have been fire to the west were it not for the fact that the Pacific Ocean lay there. 

I'm not trying to pick on California. The only point I was making is that it's somewhat hypocritical for California to brag about their low carbon footprint when they refuse to bury their grid, sending billions of tons of carbon into the air, at the same time they're buying electricity from Wyoming. Electricity, I might add, that was generated from coal. The sulfur content varies in that coal, regardless of what you might pick out from Wikipedia, but the greenhouse gas doesn't. Here's a statistic: {Most of the electricity consumed in Wyoming comes from burning coal. The state’s per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, according to a U.S. Bureau of Land Management assessment, are more than four times the national average.}

Look, we can argue about coal, rotational inertia vs. inserted inertia, batteries, and the coming-on-strong renewables. For the sake of mankind, I personally hope your state pulls it off without a hitch, but what I strongly suspect is going to happen is a more unstable grid--and bigger disasters. California has escaped massive-death disaster due to energy-insufficiency only because in the past every time the governor called up and asked for electricity, he got it. Until last year. For the first time ever, it became obvious that electricity is not always a fungible commodity, issued upon demand to the state of California, and that people could actually hoard it for their own selfish purposes.

Maybe California will get by with this, I don't know. Certainly you have access to some of the brightest minds. But I believe your governor is going to be shocked at just how much demand there has suddenly developed for electricity. The demand is so great, and growing, that prudent people are actually using redundant sources--the most reliable being natural gas fired utility plants. If the battery takes care of all of this, and the world continues to allow California to spew carbon into the air whilst denouncing the rest of the country for pollution, then god bless you. But poor Mr. Biden has been slipped a Mickey: he doesn't have a clue in the world about energy, it's just politics to him. 

And that right there is the only reason why the California plan has suddenly become America's problem.  

[turbguy + 1,401]

47 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please provide a reference to a published source (such as a local newspaper in Eastvale) that mentions a blackout caused by a shortfall in supply. We had them in 2001 (Enron playing games in the power market). After that, I am aware of no documented scheduled outages due to supply shortfall until August 2020. If such an event happened, it would have been reported. I was not there and you were, so you are in better position to find such a published report.

Here is a report on scheduled power outage for a required infrastructure upgrade in Eastvale. This was not caused by a supply shortfall, and no amount of excess generating capacity would have prevented the need for this

https://www.eastvaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/244/

PLANNED outages (1-4 hours long) are announced and happen once-twice a year in my area, typically to perform maintenance on substation or high-line equipment.  It's FORCED outages that piss people off.

You do know that certain large industrial customers have an "interruptible contract" with utilities, which they get a negotiated discount for, that causes them short-notice outages at the "whim" of the utility?  Does that count?  Or does it have to disturb residential customers, instead?

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,401]

33 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

 Here's a statistic: {Most of the electricity consumed in Wyoming comes from burning coal. The state’s per-capita greenhouse gas emissions, according to a U.S. Bureau of Land Management assessment, are more than four times the national average.}

 

Yeah!  And we Wyomingites got the most guns per capita, the most diesel trucks per capita, and the highest consumption of BTU's per capita.  That's to be expected in a state that's really a small town with VERY long streets. But we export most of the electricity produced here to whoever pays the most (a day or an hour ahead).  Perhaps we need a severance tax on electrons.

And Yellowstone still smells like Pittsburgh used to...

Edited February 2, 2021 by turbguy