4 ms·

This is not the full story; the grid is sized to allow peak load heat shed during the cooler night hours; if we do not have those hours to cool it we start seei

This is not the full story; the grid is sized to allow peak load heat shed during the cooler night hours; if we do not have those hours to cool it we start seeing a drastic increase in failures. I've heard some talk that some of the PG&E caused fires are due to the grids not getting enough time to cool and accelerating failures. Note that this doesn't excuse their lack of investment in infrastructure. Basically, we need to hugely over provision the grid to handle 24/7 loading without the current failure modes. That will require a complete rethink on what constitutes the base load, how solar can help and how it can't, etc.

KingOfCoders 4y ago
"I've heard some talk that some of the PG&E caused fires are due to the grids not getting enough time to cool" Source?
- CobaltFire 4y ago
  Nothing that I could reference or I would have put it in there. I have family in some of the effected areas (Marin and Navato) and that's one of the discussion points. It seems plausible but I have nothing more than that. Edit: I don't think the grid being hot would cause a fire, to be clear. I'm under the impression that it causes the lines to sag, increasing the occurrence of the primary mode of wildfire cause, vegetation contact. Further, running the transformers hotter shortens their life (as it does with most electrical equipment).
0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
Do renewables also require cooling times or is that restricted to natural gas/coal plants? If we continue on this pace of installing so much solar will the peak plants get used less frequently? Or was that just sloppy language on peak vs base loads? I have not seen anything near-term realistic on removing fossil fuel base load generation.
- CobaltFire 4y ago
  I think you may have extended what I'm talking about in ways I didn't intend; there was no sloppy language. The transmission infrastructure needs cooling off time, not the generation. Base load has to be completely changed if we consider charging EV's at a population level, which changes how we look at renewables that aren't around the clock (i.e. solar). To be clear I'm 100% behind getting rid of ICE, coal, gas, etc. as soon as we can. That doesn't mean there aren't assumptions that won't have to be challenged. As for my background and experience, I worked in Nuclear Power generation. I'm not a complete domain expert, but neither am I speaking from a place of no experience.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
    Transmission vs generation was my confusion. I was thinking of minor plant maintenance activities being easier to schedule during off hours. Off hours which might be significantly reduced if EVs put additional load at night.
    - CobaltFire 4y ago
      That's actually a valid point, and that may actually be a factor in the base load plants, i.e. they are sized to be able to rotate generating sources and if we have to run them harder that overprovision may not be sufficient.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> the grid is sized to allow peak load heat shed during the cooler night hours IIRC, the big concern with cooling off time was not simply due to high loads, but rather high loads combined with high ambient temperatures at night. I.e. it wasn't so much of a concern in places that dropped below 80F overnight.
- CobaltFire 4y ago
  Correct. Running those same transmission lines overnight (to charge EV's) would continue to put heat into them, meaning that temperature issue is exacerbated.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    So places like Arizona, maybe SoCal, they'd have trouble in the summer. Places in the north that always get well below 80F would be okay for a good long time. In either case I don't see it as a big deal. Power companies exist to sell us power, they'll figure it out.
    - CobaltFire 4y ago
      They are already having trouble in the more northern areas of California. I first heard this referenced with respect to Paradise. That implies the issue is far worse than you seem to think. Also, a glib "they'll figure it out" is less than a step removed from sticking your head in the sand. You don't have to be a domain expert to learn and understand the first order principles at issue here.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        Is there a legitimate concern that they won't figure it out? This is just an exercise in engineering, and they've been expanding the grid for decades. The kind of growth required to support EVs even if every single car sold today was electric is entirely within the bounds of past success. How is it glib to assume that power engineers are capable of engineering a grid that can support our needs?

KingOfCoders 4y ago

"I've heard some talk that some of the PG&E caused fires are due to the grids not getting enough time to cool" Source?

CobaltFire 4y ago
Nothing that I could reference or I would have put it in there. I have family in some of the effected areas (Marin and Navato) and that's one of the discussion points. It seems plausible but I have nothing more than that. Edit: I don't think the grid being hot would cause a fire, to be clear. I'm under the impression that it causes the lines to sag, increasing the occurrence of the primary mode of wildfire cause, vegetation contact. Further, running the transformers hotter shortens their life (as it does with most electrical equipment).

0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago

Do renewables also require cooling times or is that restricted to natural gas/coal plants? If we continue on this pace of installing so much solar will the peak plants get used less frequently? Or was that just sloppy language on peak vs base loads? I have not seen anything near-term realistic on removing fossil fuel base load generation.

CobaltFire 4y ago
I think you may have extended what I'm talking about in ways I didn't intend; there was no sloppy language. The transmission infrastructure needs cooling off time, not the generation. Base load has to be completely changed if we consider charging EV's at a population level, which changes how we look at renewables that aren't around the clock (i.e. solar). To be clear I'm 100% behind getting rid of ICE, coal, gas, etc. as soon as we can. That doesn't mean there aren't assumptions that won't have to be challenged. As for my background and experience, I worked in Nuclear Power generation. I'm not a complete domain expert, but neither am I speaking from a place of no experience.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  Transmission vs generation was my confusion. I was thinking of minor plant maintenance activities being easier to schedule during off hours. Off hours which might be significantly reduced if EVs put additional load at night.
  - CobaltFire 4y ago
    That's actually a valid point, and that may actually be a factor in the base load plants, i.e. they are sized to be able to rotate generating sources and if we have to run them harder that overprovision may not be sufficient.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> the grid is sized to allow peak load heat shed during the cooler night hours IIRC, the big concern with cooling off time was not simply due to high loads, but rather high loads combined with high ambient temperatures at night. I.e. it wasn't so much of a concern in places that dropped below 80F overnight.

CobaltFire 4y ago
Correct. Running those same transmission lines overnight (to charge EV's) would continue to put heat into them, meaning that temperature issue is exacerbated.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  So places like Arizona, maybe SoCal, they'd have trouble in the summer. Places in the north that always get well below 80F would be okay for a good long time. In either case I don't see it as a big deal. Power companies exist to sell us power, they'll figure it out.
  - CobaltFire 4y ago
    They are already having trouble in the more northern areas of California. I first heard this referenced with respect to Paradise. That implies the issue is far worse than you seem to think. Also, a glib "they'll figure it out" is less than a step removed from sticking your head in the sand. You don't have to be a domain expert to learn and understand the first order principles at issue here.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Is there a legitimate concern that they won't figure it out? This is just an exercise in engineering, and they've been expanding the grid for decades. The kind of growth required to support EVs even if every single car sold today was electric is entirely within the bounds of past success. How is it glib to assume that power engineers are capable of engineering a grid that can support our needs?