11 ms·

The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consumi

The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons.. Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap!

thechao 9y ago
Texas is investing billions into new voltage lines---many of which are designed to pull power from west & coastal Texas power to central & near-East Texas. (This leaves East Texas power generation to East Texas.)
jacquesm 9y ago
> The bottleneck is the grid. Sure the grid is a bottle neck, but it is a bottle neck that can be fixed. Aging infrastructure is the problem, not the grid per-se, it just happens to have older and less well maintained segments. > The Grid has to match the production and demand No, the grid transports power from places where it is generated to places where it is consumed. Whether the consumer is local or remote is not that important other than that you'll incur some more losses. Demand matching is the job of powerplants that can change their output power quickly. > and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. That's because there simply is an excess of power in CA and shedding it to AZ is cheaper than shunting it locally. > A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons.. Of course it isn't. That LNG tanker needs a port and it needs a plant to convert the LNG to electricity. LNG is hamburger, electricity is steak. > Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap! There also exist load leveling measures using superconducting loops, these are used for windfarms whose output can change very rapidly especially when they're on the end of anemic grid infrastructure (remote location), these can be used for solar as well.
- saryant 9y ago
  Electricity may be more flexible for domestic consumption but it's damn hard to ship electrons to Japan or Europe from the US.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    That's true but we don't need to, energy markets are large enough over the distances that we can ship those electrons. And 'damn hard' is not the same as impossible, there have been studies done on how to ship electricity from Africa to Europe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-north-africa-light-europe-solar-power/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-north-africa-... That's not quite Japan or Europe from the US but it would be intercontinental. The biggest hurdles are political rather than technical. For the really long haul (say, US to EU) I doubt it would be economical, but as a way of leveling the day/night difference it would be an awesome way to make solar power more feasible for base load generation. Long before that happens though we'll see windfarms in the Atlantic and in the Pacific.
    - saryant 9y ago
      But we do need to ship energy across markets over long distances. There's nothing on the horizon that is going to end that need. Energy is still largely in the domain of geopolitics. Russia can turn off gas shipments to Europe. Qatar can be blockaded. Entire governments can veer towards collapse threatening supplies (Venezuela). Coalitions may decide to forcibly remove another nation's supplies from the market, as was the case with Iran. That leaves international energy markets inherently inefficient and susceptible to disruption (not the SV kind). When those disruptions occur, the ability to quickly ship vast quantities of energy becomes absolutely vital. This has been best demonstrated during periods when OPEC refused to supply certain countries because of their ties to Israel. The ability to quickly shift supplies from non-OPEC sources around the market, due to the fungibility of oil and the ease of shipment, kept the lights on across much of the world. A fair counterpoint to this argument is the reduced dependency on energy produced by potentially hostile powers that could come about with the advent of renewables like solar and wind. However, as technology improves to allow electricity transmission across greater distances (like, say, the Mediterranean), do we really reduce dependencies on potentially hostile nations? Electricity isn't fungible if it can't be transmitted to the markets where gaps are created by geopolitics. If, say, Tunisia decided to cut off France from a hypothetical trans-Med grid, would France be able to find enough energy from neighboring grids with excess supply? I don't know. So long as energy decisions are inherently political, the market needs the ability to ship energy quickly and on-demand to fill gaps created by the whims of politicians and autocrats. Finally, I'll note that the Allies won World War II in large part because of their superior ability to ship energy wherever it was needed in any theater of operations and moments when those supply chains broke down often led to significant Axis advances and prolonged the war, such as Eisenhower's difficult decision to deprive Patton of gasoline in order to keep other parts of the Allied advance moving across Europe.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. Europe is handling it well: http://www.powermag.com/europe-rebuilds-grid-to-accommodate-green-energy-swell/ http://www.powermag.com/europe-rebuilds-grid-to-accommodate-... America will probably lag significantly in this regard because too much of the grid is owned by companies that also own coal/natural gas, etc. and have a strong incentive not to upgrade.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  In Europe one big reason for this is that Germany is now a very large producer of electricity from wind energy and several of Germany's neighbors have old and unstable grid infra. This causes all kinds of problem, especially in the former East German part of Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. Those regions still have a large chunk of their power infrastructure dating back to the communist times, power consumption in those regions is up considerably compared to the time when those grids were sized and that combined with the fluctuating supply caused by wind farms has caused some issues that can't be mitigated easily. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/how-german-wind-power-is-complicating-eu-unity-quicktake-q-a https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/how-germa...
- briandear 9y ago
  The incentive not to upgrade is the incredible cost. Why upgrade when the unit economics make no sense? Of course there are some that would suggest the government should make the unit economics work by imposing heavy taxes – that would work except electricity bills would skyrocket due to a de facto price floor. I would argue that “immediate” action is unnecessary as the economics gradually improve, so will infrastructure. It isn’t like these changes are needed right now. The data doesn’t support the idea of impending catastrophe, unless your business is profiting from such a catastrophe. The market will solve this. We are already using more renewables when it makes sense and that percentage will organically grow as renewables become more efficient. Eventually oil and coal will be less profitable than renewables and when that happens, the market and infrastructure will naturally evolve. Innovation rarely happens because the government wills it. The markets drive innovation.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
> The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. This is more likely due to subsidies. The government wants more solar so it pays the producer to make it. They can sell it for any price down to the negative of that subsidy (i.e. pass on 99% of the subsidy to someone else) and still make money. If it displaces fossil fuels then the government has succeeded in achieving their aims with the subsidy and everyone is happy. I believe solar (and wind) can generally curtail themselves, so if they are exporting power to the grid then it's because it's in their economic interest to do so. Some in depth info here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/An-Illustrated-Guide-to-Solar-Curtailment-in-California https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/An-Illustrated-...
- dilemma 9y ago
  Input and output need to be matched regardless of any subsidies that may exist.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    You missed the part where I said solar and wind can simply turn themselves off ("curtailment") in order to balance the grid if demand is too low. People get a bit excited about negative prices, as if it heralds the end of sanity. But it's usually a very sensible, market-driven response to either subsidies (which to be clear, think are a good thing) or to inflexible coal generation which would rather pay money than throttle down for short periods. There's also this idea that it'll destroy the grid by overproducing. When really the worst that'll happen is something like the infamous duck curve, where gas plants can't ramp up as far and as fast as needed. The shocking solution? Just turn them on early so they've got time to ramp and curtail the solar being produced at that time. Since a bit of extra curtailment in Spring is such a boring solution I have to wonder at the motives of the people who report on the Duck Curve as a looming threat to the grid.

thechao 9y ago

Texas is investing billions into new voltage lines---many of which are designed to pull power from west & coastal Texas power to central & near-East Texas. (This leaves East Texas power generation to East Texas.)

jacquesm 9y ago

> The bottleneck is the grid. Sure the grid is a bottle neck, but it is a bottle neck that can be fixed. Aging infrastructure is the problem, not the grid per-se, it just happens to have older and less well maintained segments. > The Grid has to match the production and demand No, the grid transports power from places where it is generated to places where it is consumed. Whether the consumer is local or remote is not that important other than that you'll incur some more losses. Demand matching is the job of powerplants that can change their output power quickly. > and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. That's because there simply is an excess of power in CA and shedding it to AZ is cheaper than shunting it locally. > A tanker with LNG is much more flexible and denser form of energy than photons to electrons.. Of course it isn't. That LNG tanker needs a port and it needs a plant to convert the LNG to electricity. LNG is hamburger, electricity is steak. > Once electrons out they need to be consumed asap! There also exist load leveling measures using superconducting loops, these are used for windfarms whose output can change very rapidly especially when they're on the end of anemic grid infrastructure (remote location), these can be used for solar as well.

saryant 9y ago
Electricity may be more flexible for domestic consumption but it's damn hard to ship electrons to Japan or Europe from the US.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  That's true but we don't need to, energy markets are large enough over the distances that we can ship those electrons. And 'damn hard' is not the same as impossible, there have been studies done on how to ship electricity from Africa to Europe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-north-africa-light-europe-solar-power/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-north-africa-... That's not quite Japan or Europe from the US but it would be intercontinental. The biggest hurdles are political rather than technical. For the really long haul (say, US to EU) I doubt it would be economical, but as a way of leveling the day/night difference it would be an awesome way to make solar power more feasible for base load generation. Long before that happens though we'll see windfarms in the Atlantic and in the Pacific.
  - saryant 9y ago
    But we do need to ship energy across markets over long distances. There's nothing on the horizon that is going to end that need. Energy is still largely in the domain of geopolitics. Russia can turn off gas shipments to Europe. Qatar can be blockaded. Entire governments can veer towards collapse threatening supplies (Venezuela). Coalitions may decide to forcibly remove another nation's supplies from the market, as was the case with Iran. That leaves international energy markets inherently inefficient and susceptible to disruption (not the SV kind). When those disruptions occur, the ability to quickly ship vast quantities of energy becomes absolutely vital. This has been best demonstrated during periods when OPEC refused to supply certain countries because of their ties to Israel. The ability to quickly shift supplies from non-OPEC sources around the market, due to the fungibility of oil and the ease of shipment, kept the lights on across much of the world. A fair counterpoint to this argument is the reduced dependency on energy produced by potentially hostile powers that could come about with the advent of renewables like solar and wind. However, as technology improves to allow electricity transmission across greater distances (like, say, the Mediterranean), do we really reduce dependencies on potentially hostile nations? Electricity isn't fungible if it can't be transmitted to the markets where gaps are created by geopolitics. If, say, Tunisia decided to cut off France from a hypothetical trans-Med grid, would France be able to find enough energy from neighboring grids with excess supply? I don't know. So long as energy decisions are inherently political, the market needs the ability to ship energy quickly and on-demand to fill gaps created by the whims of politicians and autocrats. Finally, I'll note that the Allies won World War II in large part because of their superior ability to ship energy wherever it was needed in any theater of operations and moments when those supply chains broke down often led to significant Axis advances and prolonged the war, such as Eisenhower's difficult decision to deprive Patton of gasoline in order to keep other parts of the Allied advance moving across Europe.

crdoconnor 9y ago

>The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. Europe is handling it well: http://www.powermag.com/europe-rebuilds-grid-to-accommodate-green-energy-swell/ http://www.powermag.com/europe-rebuilds-grid-to-accommodate-... America will probably lag significantly in this regard because too much of the grid is owned by companies that also own coal/natural gas, etc. and have a strong incentive not to upgrade.

jacquesm 9y ago
In Europe one big reason for this is that Germany is now a very large producer of electricity from wind energy and several of Germany's neighbors have old and unstable grid infra. This causes all kinds of problem, especially in the former East German part of Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. Those regions still have a large chunk of their power infrastructure dating back to the communist times, power consumption in those regions is up considerably compared to the time when those grids were sized and that combined with the fluctuating supply caused by wind farms has caused some issues that can't be mitigated easily. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/how-german-wind-power-is-complicating-eu-unity-quicktake-q-a https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/how-germa...
briandear 9y ago
The incentive not to upgrade is the incredible cost. Why upgrade when the unit economics make no sense? Of course there are some that would suggest the government should make the unit economics work by imposing heavy taxes – that would work except electricity bills would skyrocket due to a de facto price floor. I would argue that “immediate” action is unnecessary as the economics gradually improve, so will infrastructure. It isn’t like these changes are needed right now. The data doesn’t support the idea of impending catastrophe, unless your business is profiting from such a catastrophe. The market will solve this. We are already using more renewables when it makes sense and that percentage will organically grow as renewables become more efficient. Eventually oil and coal will be less profitable than renewables and when that happens, the market and infrastructure will naturally evolve. Innovation rarely happens because the government wills it. The markets drive innovation.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

> The bottleneck is the grid. The Grid has to match the production and demand, and at times that is why CA gives away electricity to AZ and pay for AZ for consuming its electricity. In turn, AZ turns off some of its production. This is more likely due to subsidies. The government wants more solar so it pays the producer to make it. They can sell it for any price down to the negative of that subsidy (i.e. pass on 99% of the subsidy to someone else) and still make money. If it displaces fossil fuels then the government has succeeded in achieving their aims with the subsidy and everyone is happy. I believe solar (and wind) can generally curtail themselves, so if they are exporting power to the grid then it's because it's in their economic interest to do so. Some in depth info here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/An-Illustrated-Guide-to-Solar-Curtailment-in-California https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/An-Illustrated-...

dilemma 9y ago
Input and output need to be matched regardless of any subsidies that may exist.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  You missed the part where I said solar and wind can simply turn themselves off ("curtailment") in order to balance the grid if demand is too low. People get a bit excited about negative prices, as if it heralds the end of sanity. But it's usually a very sensible, market-driven response to either subsidies (which to be clear, think are a good thing) or to inflexible coal generation which would rather pay money than throttle down for short periods. There's also this idea that it'll destroy the grid by overproducing. When really the worst that'll happen is something like the infamous duck curve, where gas plants can't ramp up as far and as fast as needed. The shocking solution? Just turn them on early so they've got time to ramp and curtail the solar being produced at that time. Since a bit of extra curtailment in Spring is such a boring solution I have to wonder at the motives of the people who report on the Duck Curve as a looming threat to the grid.