Solar saving neighborhoods money

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Everyone knows that 38% is a passing grade in school, if you have enough money.

38% is bad but 12% is a whole lot worse.  I agree there where failures across the board, renewables just failed more miserably than NG and coal. 

[BIGUN 1,050]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

38% is bad but 12% is a whole lot worse.  I agree there where failures across the board, renewables just failed more miserably than NG and coal. 

I don't know that because you're not sharing each energy types' percent of contribution to comprise 100% of the grid's commitment.  

38% may be worse depending on it's contribution to the total commitment. 

[Phil1111 908]

37 minutes ago, billvon said:

Everyone knows that 38% is a passing grade in school, if you have enough money.

Everyone knows 38% right doesn't work in engineering, doesn't work in medicine and doesn't work in finance. But for the GOP 38% right is a home run.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

38% is bad but 12% is a whole lot worse.  I agree there where failures across the board, renewables just failed more miserably than NG and coal. 

We have long ago established that you really don't understand percentages very well. So I chuckle every time you post them.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

NPR story on the situation:

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-winter-storms-2021/2021/02/18/968967137/no-the-blackouts-in-texas-werent-caused-by-renewables-heres-what-really-happened?utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR1InC3tutAki_YCAcST6ZUCZId6U5meF2I26otUxmuX2wLjAObocJeiSxk

 

Selected quotes from the story:
 

Quote

This week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott appeared on local TV in Dallas and blamed the state's power crisis on the devastating storm that disrupted power generation and froze natural gas pipelines.

He didn't single out one power source to blame. Then he went on Fox News and gave a different story.

"Wind and solar got shut down," he said. "They were collectively more than 10% of our power grid, and that thrust Texas into a situation where it was lacking power on a statewide basis."...

 

...Blaming wind and solar is a political move, Bird says. What's really needed — in Texas and elsewhere — is better preparation.

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

38% is bad but 12% is a whole lot worse.  I agree there where failures across the board, renewables just failed more miserably than NG and coal. 

If you weren't so bad at what you do you'd have a fat job in the industry by now. Instead you prefer nowheresville where you bounce like a pinball from petard hoist to petard hoist. That's not an exaggeration, Brent. You are still young and you are fucking it all away swimming in a small pond. Fuck this forum. If you have the stones get out there and show us how it's done. 

[billvon 2,384]

20 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

...Blaming wind and solar is a political move, Bird says. What's really needed — in Texas and elsewhere — is better preparation.

Yep.

Iowa got 42% of their power from wind in 2019.  And it's a lot colder in Iowa than in Texas.  No big blackouts in this storm; the worst they got to in the worst part of the storm was 1500 homes without power.  They figured it out.

Perhaps it's not wind turbines that are the problem.  Perhaps it's the people who are installing, operating and maintaining the wind turbines.  (And the nuclear power plants, and the natural gas plants.)

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Yep.

Iowa got 42% of their power from wind in 2019.  And it's a lot colder in Iowa than in Texas.  No big blackouts in this storm; the worst they got to in the worst part of the storm was 1500 homes without power.  They figured it out.

Perhaps it's not wind turbines that are the problem.  Perhaps it's the people who are installing, operating and maintaining the wind turbines.  (And the nuclear power plants, and the natural gas plants.)

For the obvious, it's my honor to round you out to 600 likes.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.

Iowa got 42% of their power from wind in 2019.  And it's a lot colder in Iowa than in Texas.  No big blackouts in this storm; the worst they got to in the worst part of the storm was 1500 homes without power.  They figured it out.

Perhaps it's not wind turbines that are the problem.  Perhaps it's the people who are installing, operating and maintaining the wind turbines.  (And the nuclear power plants, and the natural gas plants.)

Rolling blackouts with thousands losing power is a success story?  If anything, this episode illustrates just how dependent renewables are to fossil fuels for backup.  You continue to fail to address the question I posed earlier...Just how bad would the situation be if the Midwest depended 100% on renewables?

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Rolling blackouts with thousands losing power is a success story?  If anything, this episode illustrates just how dependent renewables are to fossil fuels for backup.  You continue to fail to address the question I posed earlier...Just how bad would the situation be if the Midwest depended 100% on renewables?

 

38%+12%+42% <100% and the beat goes on. This is a side bar skydiving blow hard forum. If you are so smart and informed go make something happen. Show us. 

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

38%+12%+42% <100% and the beat goes on. This is a side bar skydiving blow hard forum. If you are so smart and informed go make something happen. Show us. 

It’s worth noting, Illinois, which depends very little on wind and solar had no production related blackouts.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, brenthutch said:

It’s worth noting, Illinois, which depends very little on wind and solar had no production related blackouts.

It's further worth noting that no one here, me in particular, will be paying you for your pearls of wisdom. Interestingly, and I'm guessing you were taught this, if no one will pay you for what you know, and I'm certain it's been better articulated, then what you know ain't worth jack shit. 

[Phil1111 908]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It’s worth noting, Illinois, which depends very little on wind and solar had no production related blackouts.

Liar! Gov. Pritzker issues disaster proclamation in Illinois after winter storm

"Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker has issued a disaster declaration after the Monday, February 15 snow storm covered the state in snow and power outages. The proclamation was made in light of several inches of snow disrupting traffic and causing power outages in several areas across the state, frigid temperatures causing slick conditions and freezing infrastructure, and high wind speeds make the aforementioned problems even worse."

Are you not embarrassed and ashamed of lying to your skydiving friends and brothers in these forums? All just to make silly points in a shameful attempt to be "proven right".

Your energy dependent neighbor just declared an emergency as well.

"Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has stood out as one of the most vocal opponents of Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5 project, which is the state’s main source of home heating fuels. Now, however, she’s declared a state of emergency amid a bitter cold snap in her state – and is warning that a spike in energy demand for home heating fuels like propane has put a strain on state-wide distribution.

“While I am confident that our state has the energy supply we need to get through these cold winter days, we aren’t taking any chances after what happened in Texas this week,” Whitmer said in a Saturday statement. “All of Michigan’s neighboring states, and the majority of states in the nation, are under some form of federal or state energy emergency declaration.”

Under the terms of the order, Michigan will temporarily suspend restrictions on commercial driver hours to ensure propane can be delivered in an expedient manner.

In an emailed statement to BNN Bloomberg, Enbridge underscored the importance of Line 5 to the Michigan market, warning the state would face daunting propane shortages if the project was ever shut down."

You owe Joe and the moderators here an apology for lying. Personally I don't need one.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Phil1111

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Rolling blackouts with thousands losing power is a success story?

During the worst storm of the winter?  With people being without power for a few hours at a time?  Yes, that's a success story.  Especially compared to Texas.
 

Quote

You continue to fail to address the question I posed earlier...Just how bad would the situation be if the Midwest depended 100% on renewables?

Keep trolling like that and you'll see another ban.

[brenthutch 383]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

During the worst storm of the winter?  With people being without power for a few hours at a time?  Yes, that's a success story.  Especially compared to Texas.
 

Keep trolling like that and you'll see another ban.

That is not a troll, it is a reality check.  

Edited February 23, 2021 by brenthutch

[CygnusX-1 42]

On 2/23/2021 at 6:43 AM, brenthutch said:

That is not a troll, it is a reality check.

 

On 2/22/2021 at 10:01 PM, brenthutch said:

You continue to fail to address the question I posed earlier...Just how bad would the situation be if the Midwest depended 100% on renewables?

Since no one else has answered and you claim you are not trollling, I'll answer this question to shut you the F up.

In your hypothetical scenario, the situation would be way better than today. There would probably be close to zero power outages. I say close because there would still be some power lines downed by ice. No system is 100% perfect. But in a 100% renewable situation, there will be distributed generation with storage (read this as Li Battery, Salt, Change of State, Potential Energy, etc.) vs. centralized generation. The demand on the current grid will be significantly reduced therefore when there is a problem with the legacy grid, the effect to the population will be reduced to close to zero.

Also, the "Midwest" is attached to the National Grid. Therefore what little centralized generation is still left and there will be some, will be able to get their power form other states that are not currently affected by whatever hypothetical storm we decide to create for this hypothetical situation.

Your Welcome!

[billvon 2,384]

19 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

In your hypothetical scenario, the situation would be way better than today. There would probably be close to zero power outages.

Yep.  Good article on this:

https://theconversation.com/texas-electricity-grid-failure-shows-how-microgrids-offer-hope-for-a-better-future-155708

There are basically two ways for Texas to go.

One is that they can join the rest of the US with grid interties, so that they can better weather the loss of their own generation.  Every other state in the US is connected to neighboring states to avoid exactly the problem Texas had.  They get power from other states when they are in crisis - and they give power to other states when they have a surplus.

Two is that they move to microgrids and renewable backups.  It can be as simple as getting solar with an SMA inverter - that gives you 2000 watts of power when the sun is out, enough to keep your house from freezing, pump water, charge your devices etc.  It can be as complex as a network of Tesla powerwalls in individual homes that work together to keep the lights on in an entire neighborhood, even for people who don't have powerwalls.  And market solutions work best here - those neighbors pay through the nose to a DR supplier (via an app) if they want to keep their lights on, and that money goes right back to the people with the powerwalls who supply it.  Win/win, and the money stays local.

The solution will likely be a combination of both.

[Phil1111 908]

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Good article on this:

https://theconversation.com/texas-electricity-grid-failure-shows-how-microgrids-offer-hope-for-a-better-future-155708

There are basically two ways for Texas to go.

One is that they can join the rest of the US with grid interties, so that they can better weather the loss of their own generation.  Every other state in the US is connected to neighboring states to avoid exactly the problem Texas had.  They get power from other states when they are in crisis - and they give power to other states when they have a surplus.

Two is that they move to microgrids and renewable backups.  It can be as simple as getting solar with an SMA inverter - that gives you 2000 watts of power when the sun is out, enough to keep your house from freezing, pump water, charge your devices etc.  It can be as complex as a network of Tesla powerwalls in individual homes that work together to keep the lights on in an entire neighborhood, even for people who don't have powerwalls.  And market solutions work best here - those neighbors pay through the nose to a DR supplier (via an app) if they want to keep their lights on, and that money goes right back to the people with the powerwalls who supply it.  Win/win, and the money stays local.

The solution will likely be a combination of both.

It seems as if plugging your hybrid into your electrical panel with an inverter would be a good solution as well.  I would think auto wreckers would have a high demand for Tesla car batteries from DIYers.

[murps2000 86]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

It seems as if plugging your hybrid into your electrical panel with an inverter would be a good solution as well.  I would think auto wreckers would have a high demand for Tesla car batteries from DIYers.

I’ve seen a couple of threads on this in the Prius chat forum, and apparently it works really well. I am surprised at how much power you can get out of even an old gen 2 Prius. Some were getting close to a weeks worth of power out of only a few gallons of fuel. Obviously they weren’t powering their entire home, but they kept the essentials going. Not exactly renewable though.

[billeisele 122]

On 2/24/2021 at 12:40 PM, CygnusX-1 said:

 

Since no one else has answered and you claim you are not trollling, I'll answer this question to shut you the F up.

In your hypothetical scenario, the situation would be way better than today. There would probably be close to zero power outages. I say close because there would still be some power lines downed by ice. No system is 100% perfect. But in a 100% renewable situation, there will be distributed generation with storage (read this as Li Battery, Salt, Change of State, Potential Energy, etc.) vs. centralized generation. The demand on the current grid will be significantly reduced therefore when there is a problem with the legacy grid, the effect to the population will be reduced to close to zero.

Also, the "Midwest" is attached to the National Grid. Therefore what little centralized generation is still left and there will be some, will be able to get their power form other states that are not currently affected by whatever hypothetical storm we decide to create for this hypothetical situation.

Your Welcome!

All that is fine and dandy except you have to pay for it. Not being connected to the "grid" definitely made the problem worse.

That's the one part of this discussion that is missing - paying for the huge investment. Anything is technically feasible if one throws enough money at it. The questions is - does it make economic sense?

The generator owners and gas pipe owners made the economic decisions to not add the "cold weather" package to those technologies. If they had, the electricity would not have been interrupted but electricity prices would have been higher. All the technologies work if money is spent to make them work. But those additional costs go into the cost of electricity.

This graph was posted earlier. What is shows is no surprise, and exactly how these technologies work and how they are economically dispatched. Nuclear is base load and run at full capacity. For this system, coal is the next part of the base load. There is some variation in output most likely due to outages and system balancing. Natural gas is next and used for peaking and load control. It can quickly be ramped up or down to meet demand. Then there is solar and wind that operate when their fuel is available.  

With this system mix they can manage the load without too much trouble. The more renewable output and the  lower the system load the harder it is to manage the fossil generators. Gas turbines aren't too difficult but a coal or gas fired plant can't cycle down too much without being very difficult to operate. Usually they will be shut off if the output gets down in the 35-40% range. It varies based on the design but the point is they can't easily ramp up and down. When they are shut off they must go thru a number of steps and it can easily be 6 - 10 hours before they can be restarted. That whole process is expensive (easily $100 - $500K) and would end up in the cost of electricity. You can't shut it off in the evening when the load drops and then just fire it off for the morning wake up. When they are operating below full load the efficiency is reduced and there are other issues that negatively impact the life span of major components. All those things increase operating costs.

There is some economical mix of nuclear, coal, gas and renewables where they all play nice together and the customer gets the most economical price for electricity. That statement ignores environmental issues - the cost of pollution, landfilling turbine blades, battery management, and the list of other stuff that makes this more complicated.

[wmw999 2,116]

12 minutes ago, billeisele said:

There is some economical mix of nuclear, coal, gas and renewables where they all play nice together and the customer gets the most economical price for electricity. That statement ignores environmental issues - the cost of pollution, landfilling turbine blades, battery management, and the list of other stuff that makes this more complicated.

Including the cost of pollution and waste management in the equation is real, because those costs are real. We’re not sure of all of them, which means that they’re easily either ignored or abused, but they’re definitely real. 
There are people who live out in the country and “save money” by dumping their trash in local lakes, or just by the side of the road so someone else has to deal with it. But they’re not smart, they’re just assholes. 
Wendy P. 

[billvon 2,384]

2 minutes ago, billeisele said:

All that is fine and dandy except you have to pay for it. Not being connected to the "grid" definitely made the problem worse.

Well, systems that could drop off the local grid under DR control (or even shed load) would have certainly made the problem easier to deal with.   But I agree not being part of the larger grid was a big deal.

Quote

That's the one part of this discussion that is missing - paying for the huge investment. Anything is technically feasible if one throws enough money at it. The questions is - does it make economic sense?

That's one of the reasons that DR controls/microgrids/BTM storage are considered a cost effective solution.  Substations - transmission lines - large generation facilities - all those are expensive and aren't going to get much cheaper.  They've been around for decades and all the cost that can be taken out of them, has been taken out of them.

But BTM equipment is made of battery cells, inverters, switches and load measuring devices, and operates at low powers/voltages.  And those DO get cheaper pretty quickly.  Inverters are made of the same basic stuff as EV's and those have been coming down in price as economies of scale kick in.  Batteries as well.  Even in the past 15 years, inverter prices have dropped by over a factor of five, batteries by a factor of almost ten.  That's going to continue for a while.

It's already at the point where new solar is cheaper than new transmission lines.  Combine that with intelligence and storage and it's a cheaper way for utilities to improve reliability and build out their customer base.  But how that will be monetized - will people pay for it themselves?  Will utilities do that on their own? - is still a big question.

 

Quote

There is some economical mix of nuclear, coal, gas and renewables where they all play nice together and the customer gets the most economical price for electricity. That statement ignores environmental issues - the cost of pollution, landfilling turbine blades, battery management, and the list of other stuff that makes this more complicated.

Yep.  And how to price that into the solution is the challenge.

[Phil1111 908]

President Biden has initiated a price of carbon in the US. The interim figure — $51 for every ton of carbon above the $8 cost used under former President Donald trump. In Canada this year its $40 CDN a ton rising to $170 per ton of CO2 as a carbon price by 2030.

In Canada that carbon tax means: "The average household that was heating with natural gas would spend a bit more than $200 extra per year.  The average Canadian keeps their car for 6.4 years and drives it 15,200 kilometers or 9,400 miles annually. At $50, they’d be spending about $150 more a year,...

at a $50 carbon price, a Canadian would save about $8,700 driving an electric car over the life of the vehicle. $8,700 goes a long way toward defraying the cost of a Tesla Model Y."

So in nine years(at $170 a ton) a new Tesla will save $29,580 over its life( 6.4 years ownership and drives it 15,200 kilometers or 9,400 miles annual use) or $4600 a year.

"When New York set its own carbon cost in late 2020, it used a 2% rate, raising the cost to $125 per ton. from:Trump downplayed the costs of carbon pollution. That’s about to change

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

In Canada that carbon tax means:

In Canada the carbon tax is made "revenue neutral" by being offset by refundable tax credits. This will result in a massive transfer of wealth from anyone living in a place where they need to drive and heat a detached home to people living in city apartments and using transit.

[Phil1111 908]

7 hours ago, gowlerk said:

In Canada the carbon tax is made "revenue neutral" by being offset by refundable tax credits. This will result in a massive transfer of wealth from anyone living in a place where they need to drive and heat a detached home to people living in city apartments and using transit.

"As for rebates, Manitoba families of four receive an average of $486 in carbon tax rebates this year. That's $170 per adult, or $85 for the second adult and $42 per child."https://www.canadadrives.ca/blog/news/carbon-taxes-and-carbon-tax-rebates-in-canada-explained. (2021)

The additional cost of residential heating for apartments and municipal carbon taxes reflected into property taxes. Will likely be passed onto those same people as rent increases and bus fare increases. But your example would likely have that auto-less family ahead $300 this year. A three-four vehicle family in a rural area, in an apartment may see no net benefit of rebates.