Net effects of green energy and old coal on new electrical demand

The choice program in ERCOT and the one in Palo Alto, CA include reliability. Their are grid and maintenance charges on my bill.

I do pay less because of the federal wind subsidy. The choice system in texas, and other programs in Kansas and Iowa that are building so much wind mean that the federal subsidy is no longer required. Still solar still needs help, and if you are going to remove the wind subsidy, adding a coal tax is necessary to adjust for different pollution levels ($50/ton has been sugessted)Texas is fairly lucky because the main grid is contained only in one state, and the state can and has approved grid upgrades for reliability. The western and especially eastern grid need a great deal of federal help to get upgraded for renewables. The question isn't if these programs work, but if the price is right, are the subsidies right, and are they run properly to build the right amount of renewables and fossil back up plants, and if the renewables built cause the customer to have 0 or negative fossile fuel burned for their net use.

I have seen no, zero utility back lash against choice programs. They actually when done properly should make the grid more reliable. We do see some utilities playing politics, as the energy provider of the choice programs is often a different company or group of companies and individuals. That means big utilities like Duke or Southern California Edison have lower profits. My goal does not include protecting big utilities profits.

Then there is net metered solar. Some plans charge for grid reliability, some don't. in the austin system, the federal, state, and local utility subsidize the solar. The solar provider (home owner with solar on roof) gets the cash to make the system low cost, but gets assigned average grid emissions, and the utility takes the solar credits. All the utility customers pay a little to subsidize this even the choice customers. There is so little solar built though (3% mandated) that it doesn't cost the average customer much per year.

In Hill's case though, I think he only got the federal subsidy. His utility charges him for the hook up and reliability, even though his solar probably makes his utility more reliable. They pay him less than market rates for the peak power he provides to the grid The utilities botched maintenance on the san onofre nuclear plant is what hurts reliability in southern california, not solar. In most cases the complaints are about lower profits and the ability to charge for incompetence. The California Public utility commission is also partially responsible for black our risk, as there process under builds cycling power (ccgt) and encourages power imports from out of state. In hill's case he can claim some reduction in ghg, but it may be more or less than his full electrical footprint.

 

Let's talk about a good choice program.

1) 0 or negative net fossil burn, by overbuilding the renewable resource.
2) Back up capacity already existing or built with the renewable
3) Grid built out to reliably supply both the renewable and non-renewable electricity

Let's say customer A purchase power through a choice program that aggregates other choice programs, and builds both wind farms and grid connections to the farms. The utility coordinates the program with the grid operator to make sure there is enough reliability, an the grid and cycling resources (ocgt and ccgt). Because of all the customers type A, wind is built in different areas so that peak wind and troughs are different, so total grid impact is more stable than a single wind farm. Let's say in a year A actually gets electricity from 10,000 kwh of natural gas being burned, but other customers because of the turbines burned 8000 kwh less natural gas and 3000 kwh less of coal.

Do we charge customer A with their gross use of 10,000 kwh of natural gas? Or do we throw up our hands and say A used grid average. Or do we look at net effect of +2000 kwh of natural gas and -3000 kwh of coal and say its about 0?

My call is to say its about 0. Now there is a federal subsidy, and some programs don't build enough renewables, or subsidize on top of that. Lets think about a good program that strives for less than 0 net fossil fuel and is subsidized. Why look at gross instead of net? These subsidized choice programs often have lower cost to tax payers and utility customers than other methods to build renewables.

Now lets look at customer B. B owns a house or building and has plenty of cash or credit to get loans to build a off grid system. They install a big enough battery to provide full power when the sun isn't shining. They buy a diesel generator to back this up, incase they misjudged. Then they build enough solar to provide enough power with the battery for the worst month of the year. In some remote locations this may make sense. If they plan right and never use that diesel generator, I think we can all agree they don't use fossil fuel. But in terms of net fossil fuel use they do no better than A. There are subsidies for the battery and panels, and B, and if both A and B take the subsidies B is subsidized more. A also probably help pay for the poor to get electricity and grid reliability through their utility bill, while B does not contribute.

I would think if you actually want to build renewables, and make it affordable to most of the population A is a better program than B.

There is of course option C. C, puts up solar and a battery like B, but is net metered. C joins the grid and has a much smaller battery. Let's say customer C puts up panels for 125% of average power usage, and has a battery that holds about 30 minutes of power to peak shave and help with blackouts. C is going to consume fossil power when the sun doesn't shine, but offset more when it does. So C will have a gross fossil fuel use like A, but its net use will be negative. With proper regulation and pricing, C's installation will not only cost less than B's but the net fossil fuel impact is lower than Bs. Now C is the most complicated regulation wise, and the grid operator and utility commision must plan harder for these customers but that is not that complicated. My local utility also encourages C without batteries, but is experimenting with some batteries. These customers for lower lost sell their rights to claim the solar to the utility. This is less expensive than the utility building their own solar, which is mandated by my city.

 

I know you probably just ean not timed to use not excess.

We can talk net or gross. there is rarely if ever excess solar on the grid, as solar at least in the US is smaller than demand - fixed plants (coal, nuclear, and steam natural gas that are on) + solar. Occasionally wind exceeds this level, and in most places those coal plants need to pay some charge to keep the wind off the grid. Sometimes in germany solar is excess.and is wasted. Often it is better to waste a little power than to underbuild or build storage. California underproduces so much that other states need to adjust their power to make supply work.

solar or wind producing more at time than their owners is by design not excess. The idea is to provide enough power on average including grid losses, not to take renewable customers off grid.

The grid operator has to match supply and demand. Its not very sloppy. They curtail wind or lower power at steam resources or add loads or spin up cycling resources (ocgt or ccgt natural gas are the main ones). Peak demand often uses the most inefficient resources, while night demand can either use the most efficient or the least expensive resources or a combination of both. More off peak demand makes it less expensive to build more efficient power generation (ccgt and wind).

I'm not sure where that came from, but it sounds like a straw man. The argument is that if plug-ins are charged at night there is plenty of power generation capacity, only grid upgrades are needed. Of course if you don't build anymore plants, you will use more fuel (mainly natural gas, but also nuclear and coal) in the existing plants.

If you do build more power generation for the cars, it is more cost effective than if you did not have the night demand. Say you build 500 MW of fast cycling ccgt natural gas (70% utilization), 500 MW of solar (25% utilization), 500 MW of wind (35% utilization) and eliminate 600 MW (90% utilization) of coal or natural gas thermal. I've only added 90 MW average power for the cars, and it cost a lot of initial capital, but look what happens at peak and in fuel usage. Peak power will jump from 600 MW to about 1150 MW (considering erocts peak factors for solar and wind). If the fast cycling ccgt is 58% efficient, and the steam plant was 38% eficient (typical figures) nartural gas use would go from 600 x 90%/38% = 1421 MW of natural gas to 500 x700%/58% = 603 MW. Grid reliability increased and only 43% of net fossil fuel burned. That solar chunk is the tough one, its easy to build the ccgt and wind, it just takes money. Now the cars would probably charge off of some of the legacy power, but it would be the stuff running anyway, and the cycling ccft could turn off if not needed and turn back on fast. If those plug-in buyers purchased that 500 MW of solar, the wind and natural gas could be built for the fuel and maintenance savings. .

 

There are good programs and bad programs. In texas we have the choice program, the choice customers pay more and the power gets built. The net renewables are credited to those paying for them. In NY/NJ there are renewable surcharges but this only is what is legislated, that is not a choice program. The program in ercot is much more successful and that credit is part of it. The eastern grid has a lot more problems though, making choice programs less effective than in the western grid and ercot. First the grid infrastructure in New York is rather poor for adding wind, and there is not much political will to even improve it enough to prevent black outs. Having a good infrastructure is necessary to allow small operators to quickly add resources and provide this choice to customers. Then you need to be able so to have access to good renewable resources, which exist in NY/NJ but they are not as good, making them more expensive than in ercot and the western grid.

I'll give you an example of a bad NY program. I recently attended an convention in NY State and you could pay more to offset your flights and electricity there with green energy. The money though didn't go to build near the convention but in arizona for power to be exported to California. It looks like the renewable credits would be sold to you, then the power stripped of credits sold to SCE that already has a RPS, but this other energy would likely have them build or buy less. Unlike green choice in austin that actually provides all the net green energy, there was no way to tell if you were even buying any more production or not.

Colorado is a "dirty state" but has excellent choice programs to build wind. What if that dirty state leaf or i3 owner pays to buy wind turbines? Colorado wants the cars and the green energy. Why should the state taxpayers pay for the subsidies, and not get them? I mean that leaf even without the wind produces less than half the ghg as a tundra, and with the wind a lot less ghg than a prius in new york. Seems arbitrary, but I guess that is what politics is all about, and you really don't want to help this plug-in tech reduce osts for the future. Lots will politically side with you, but lets not pretend that bev in colorado is all that dirty or doesn't help reduce oil imports.

There are separate programs for that, and the federal budget is much higher for those. Likely cuts to those programs would be on any congressional bill to cut plug-in subsidies.

I think we are past buggy whip days.
RPS are less effective and more costly than choice programs for electricity, but they keep more power for the big utilities and the PUCs and the EPA, and often that is more important politically than actually cleaning the grid. Reducing coal use on the grid is happening, but could be happening much faster with better public policy. Some taxpayer money is used to keep coal on the grid, mountain top removal despite its destruction of jobs and the environment is protected by congress to ensure more coal is mined more cheaply with fewer workers. Those seem like a better subsidies and pollution problems to attack than that of plug-ins or even keystone.

At the same time it will take decades for plug-ins to become a large percentage of transportation. If the grid doesn't clean up by then, there is no way the country can meet it's ghg goals. If it does clean the grid then the plug-ins in 20 years will pollute much less than today. Why stall plug-ins to keep an oil and biofuels only transportation infrastructure. Progress takes time, and waiting for the perfect because some claim the good isn't good enough is a stall to progress.