4 ms·

One of the most compelling arguments that I hear from the anti-renewables types is that they do it in California and it doesn't work. I think there's more to i

by _ea1k 2y ago

One of the most compelling arguments that I hear from the anti-renewables types is that they do it in California and it doesn't work. I think there's more to it than that, though. TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen.

energy123 2y ago
> TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen. Kansas and Iowa are 40-60% wind and have lower prices than the national average: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I completely agree. There is a smart way to do renewables, and then there is the moronic California way. For example requiring every new house to have enough rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is one of the highest cost sources and we already have an excess of daytime solar. It ignores basic economies of scale. It adds a huge cost to every new house in a housing crisis. I don't think it is cynical to think it was simply a handout to the rooftop solar installers.
- rickydroll 2y ago
  IMO, Rooftop, and other dual-use solar are as important as Utility scale solar. The main advantage of rooftop solar panels is that the land can be used for both power and housing. Agrivoltaics and parking lot/garage rooftop solar are other examples of dual-use solar. Rooftop Solar + batteries (correctly done) is a geographically dispersed virtual power plant. There are almost no regulatory hurdles for installation and expansion. RTS is more resilient. One node goes down, and the rest keeps running. Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. Utility-scale solar is more vulnerable to damage, and outages affect a larger area. Current utility-scale solar installations are too big and should be distributed among each community.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I disagree with the resilience point and distribution. They costs differential is just too great (more than 10X last I checked), and the grid transmission always has to be sized to support 100% of local demand. I think the crux of it is your point that Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. I largely agree with that and think the other issues flow from this. It doesnt matter if my power company is buying large scale solar for $0.03/kwh, they will figure out a way to charge me $0.50. In California, power companies are not in competition, and the government sets price controls based on a ~10% corporate profit margin. Naturally, the power company drives their opex costs as high as possible every year. The system is so broken, it is hard to see a way out. I want to try to mitigate costs by rooftop production, but the state is shifting costs from use to grid hookup fees. Hell, there has even been proposals for taxing residential rooftop production.
  - skybrian 2y ago
    A problem with rooftop solar is that it’s largely unmanaged; it generates electricity without regard to demand. But on an electrical grid, supply and demand need to be balanced all the time. If there’s too much of a mismatch then it could result in power outages (to prevent equipment from being damaged). Having unmanaged power generation and usage is okay as long as large generators (and storage) are watching real-time prices and respond appropriately. This means that rooftop solar depends on utility-scale generation to offset it. Maybe that could be changed, but we aren’t anywhere near ready, and nobody is planning on it. Is there another way? A mini-grid has the ability to “island,” which allows it to run when the grid is down. It seems promising in countries with frequent power outages. Also, homes with battery power (and optionally solar) can go off-grid for a while, which is attractive in rural areas. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-grid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-grid
    - rickydroll 2y ago
      It's relatively common to find residential inverters that handle the balance issue because they interoperate with utility power management and will constrain themselves if told to do so. Inverters that handle battery and solar input are used here to create an ad hoc peak power plant. National Grid would pay me $500 to $2000 a year for providing extra energy into the grid during peak loads. You also see this with utility-scale solar, where the power consumed from the solar flat tops being the access is dumped. I take the position that if your solar array is constrained during the day, you need more batteries. Vermont has a virtual power plant where solar panels are installed on residential housing, batteries are supplied, and the virtual power plant is managed. As far as I know, they have eliminated the need for a gas peaker. Tesla does the same thing as Sunrun. As I often say, your objections are engineering problems that can be solved. :-) If you want to go further down this rabbit hole, check out https://www.youtube.com/@WillProwse https://www.youtube.com/@WillProwse. There is lots of good information, good testing, and a willingness to trigger circuit breakers at the 100amp+ range or let out magic smoke. In some of his best videos, he cuts open battery packs for various manufacturers and evaluates manufacturing, sensor placement, BEM, and hot and cold temperature protection issues. One thing we did not discuss is the need to have everyone connected to the grid contribute to the maintenance of the grid. I've lived in communities with municipal electric companies, and they generally have more reliable infrastructure and cheaper power than the big boys like National Grid and EverSource. Done right, we could use Agravoltaic to help secure the financial footing of local farms and improve many aspects of farming, including soil moisture retention, better yields, etc. With goats and sheep livestock, you don't need to mow, and you get a nicer local lamb source than you would get it by shipping it here from New Zealand.

by _ea1k 2y ago

energy123 2y ago

> TX has seen tremendous growth in renewables, and grid pricing is excellent there from the prices that I've seen. Kansas and Iowa are 40-60% wind and have lower prices than the national average: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I completely agree. There is a smart way to do renewables, and then there is the moronic California way. For example requiring every new house to have enough rooftop solar. Rooftop solar is one of the highest cost sources and we already have an excess of daytime solar. It ignores basic economies of scale. It adds a huge cost to every new house in a housing crisis. I don't think it is cynical to think it was simply a handout to the rooftop solar installers.

rickydroll 2y ago
IMO, Rooftop, and other dual-use solar are as important as Utility scale solar. The main advantage of rooftop solar panels is that the land can be used for both power and housing. Agrivoltaics and parking lot/garage rooftop solar are other examples of dual-use solar. Rooftop Solar + batteries (correctly done) is a geographically dispersed virtual power plant. There are almost no regulatory hurdles for installation and expansion. RTS is more resilient. One node goes down, and the rest keeps running. Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. Utility-scale solar is more vulnerable to damage, and outages affect a larger area. Current utility-scale solar installations are too big and should be distributed among each community.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I disagree with the resilience point and distribution. They costs differential is just too great (more than 10X last I checked), and the grid transmission always has to be sized to support 100% of local demand. I think the crux of it is your point that Economies of scale in solar only benefit utility companies. I largely agree with that and think the other issues flow from this. It doesnt matter if my power company is buying large scale solar for $0.03/kwh, they will figure out a way to charge me $0.50. In California, power companies are not in competition, and the government sets price controls based on a ~10% corporate profit margin. Naturally, the power company drives their opex costs as high as possible every year. The system is so broken, it is hard to see a way out. I want to try to mitigate costs by rooftop production, but the state is shifting costs from use to grid hookup fees. Hell, there has even been proposals for taxing residential rooftop production.
- skybrian 2y ago
  A problem with rooftop solar is that it’s largely unmanaged; it generates electricity without regard to demand. But on an electrical grid, supply and demand need to be balanced all the time. If there’s too much of a mismatch then it could result in power outages (to prevent equipment from being damaged). Having unmanaged power generation and usage is okay as long as large generators (and storage) are watching real-time prices and respond appropriately. This means that rooftop solar depends on utility-scale generation to offset it. Maybe that could be changed, but we aren’t anywhere near ready, and nobody is planning on it. Is there another way? A mini-grid has the ability to “island,” which allows it to run when the grid is down. It seems promising in countries with frequent power outages. Also, homes with battery power (and optionally solar) can go off-grid for a while, which is attractive in rural areas. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-grid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-grid
  - rickydroll 2y ago
    It's relatively common to find residential inverters that handle the balance issue because they interoperate with utility power management and will constrain themselves if told to do so. Inverters that handle battery and solar input are used here to create an ad hoc peak power plant. National Grid would pay me $500 to $2000 a year for providing extra energy into the grid during peak loads. You also see this with utility-scale solar, where the power consumed from the solar flat tops being the access is dumped. I take the position that if your solar array is constrained during the day, you need more batteries. Vermont has a virtual power plant where solar panels are installed on residential housing, batteries are supplied, and the virtual power plant is managed. As far as I know, they have eliminated the need for a gas peaker. Tesla does the same thing as Sunrun. As I often say, your objections are engineering problems that can be solved. :-) If you want to go further down this rabbit hole, check out https://www.youtube.com/@WillProwse https://www.youtube.com/@WillProwse. There is lots of good information, good testing, and a willingness to trigger circuit breakers at the 100amp+ range or let out magic smoke. In some of his best videos, he cuts open battery packs for various manufacturers and evaluates manufacturing, sensor placement, BEM, and hot and cold temperature protection issues. One thing we did not discuss is the need to have everyone connected to the grid contribute to the maintenance of the grid. I've lived in communities with municipal electric companies, and they generally have more reliable infrastructure and cheaper power than the big boys like National Grid and EverSource. Done right, we could use Agravoltaic to help secure the financial footing of local farms and improve many aspects of farming, including soil moisture retention, better yields, etc. With goats and sheep livestock, you don't need to mow, and you get a nicer local lamb source than you would get it by shipping it here from New Zealand.