See: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/california-solving-solar-power-problems-21207873.php That is a long read and followed by my long exposition. So exit now if you prefer. In summary that article described problems associated with dispatching solar and wind power to areas of demand, while balancing supplies from other generation types. It mentions the amount of time required to bring gas turbines up and down. It led to thoughts about dynamic modeling of this process. Here is my overview, and clever readers might offer improvements. The defined boxes and flows: Generation of each power type (solar, wind, hydro, gas turbine, other combustion, nuclear) has location (of source) and size. Output from solar and wind have dynamic connection to local conditions. Output from hydro might be constant until water reservoir drops to limit level, below it’s zero). Other types’ outputs might be always potentially maximum (‘nameplate values’). Each type has a spinup/spindown time; how rapidly it cam be brought online or decreased. Power distribution system in simplest sense links gnerators with users. It needs description of capacity along each distribution pathway. Power consumption by residential and industrial users are spatially specific. Their consumptions are driven differently by seasonal and daily local conditions. ‘The weather’ is known from other data sources with sufficient time and spatial resolution to ‘drive’ generators and consumers are described above. The idea is to build a model, most grandly for all western states. Or bite off a smaller piece. Where are generators, where are consumers, and how much distribution capacity is on each pathway. Goal is to describe distribution capacity required to optimize matching of supply/demand everywhere at minimum generation cost. We learn from initial reading that knowledge of spinup/spindown for generation types is important to modeling at hrs to days timescales. It would identify where power distribution systems are undersized to minimize generation costs, and by how much. Then move to separate study of costs of upgrading distribution systems. Amortize those over 50 years (or other), and see where upgrades can have most beneficial effects. Spatially explicit future climate projections are also available, so this can be forward looking as well as historical. I imagine this as a Engineering Graduate thesis. If readers imagine it as pure folly, be sure to say so
As always when it comes to electrical power, as well as political and economic power we live in a society where capitalism and the wealthiest among us are more important than having a functional system. So rather than generating electricity as close to the location that it is being used, that notion is branded as socialism and rejected and instead we have these huge investments in mega-plants to generate power in a way that is paid for by all the people who they think they're going to sell it to so the investors get rich. As in the power structure is upside down and every big power generation scheme wants to be at the top of the pyramid making the most money and all that does is create an upside down pyramid with no foundation to hold it up. In other words every citizen/household of California would be better off paying for their own financing to have their own personal power generation ability that they own and maintain, which eliminates all the scamming middle-men and financiers that want to fleece ratepayers to eventually charge them way more for profit making rather than true cost of electricity making. So much land has been destroyed in California to benefit these near lawless power companies and we'll never have a viable system until we eliminate the profiteering and focus on making everything way more affordable.
Well, things can have happened in a certain way because there were economies of scale that made sense at the time. It probably wasn't appealing, at one time, for every household to have their own coal pile, steam turbines, and itty bitty cooling towers. We're now in a situation where technology has improved the practicality of widely-distributed generation. But we've inherited the kind of distribution grid where the wires are fattest near the big old-school sources, and get skinnier out where all the consumers are with their new-found onsite generation potential.
Good point... Seems like the economies of scale of the gilded age were never addressed but worshipped, idollized and have too often inspired people in power in more modern times to remake the world in that idealized image, which is the antithesis of what created the internet as well as what we need to do to address climate change.
