Slashdot Mirror
California Has So Much Solar Power That Other States Are Paid To Take It (mic.com)
"On 14 days during March, Arizona utilities got a gift from California: free solar power," reported the Los Angeles Times. Mic reports:
California is generating so much solar energy that it is resorting to paying other states to take the excess electricity in order to prevent overloading power lines. According to the Los Angeles Times, Arizona residents have already saved millions in 2017 thanks to California's contribution. The state, which produced little to no solar energy just 15 years ago, has made strides -- it single-handedly has nearly half of the country's solar electricity generating capacity...
When there's too much solar energy, there is a risk of the electricity grid overloading. This can result in blackouts. In times like this, California offers other states a financial incentive to take their power. But it's not as environmentally friendly as one would think. Take Arizona, for example. The state opts to put a pin in its own solar energy sources instead of fossil fuel power, which means greenhouse gas emissions aren't getting any better due to California's overproduction.
The Los Angeles Times suggests over-construction of natural gas plants created part of the problem -- Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power -- but they report that power supplies could become more predictable when battery storage technologies improve.
When there's too much solar energy, there is a risk of the electricity grid overloading. This can result in blackouts. In times like this, California offers other states a financial incentive to take their power. But it's not as environmentally friendly as one would think. Take Arizona, for example. The state opts to put a pin in its own solar energy sources instead of fossil fuel power, which means greenhouse gas emissions aren't getting any better due to California's overproduction.
The Los Angeles Times suggests over-construction of natural gas plants created part of the problem -- Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power -- but they report that power supplies could become more predictable when battery storage technologies improve.
So why not take that excess electricity and make hydrogen out of it?
The journalist is (a) clueless about energy production and (b) a careless writer.
Just one example of the latter: "free" is not "paying other states to take it". Which is it? I'm not going to bother to look, but what crappy writing and editing.
Maybe you should actually bother reading. From the article:
Why does California have to pay rather than simply give the power away free?
When there isn’t demand for all the power the state is producing, CAISO needs to quickly sell the excess to avoid overloading the electricity grid, which can cause blackouts. Basic economics kick in. Oversupply causes prices to fall, even below zero. That’s because Arizona has to curtail its own sources of electricity to take California’s power when it doesn’t really need it, which can cost money. So Arizona will use power from California at times like this only if it has an economic incentive — which means being paid.
In my opinion the article is actually pretty good.
It's starting to happen already, but it will take some time to get enough storage capacity installed to catch up with the amount of solar power already on the grid.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
...on those 14 days in March, electricity customers paid exactly the same price for electricity as they did the other 17 days in March, so how did that help the consumers in California?
Likewise, customers in the state that got 'free' electricity from California also paid exactly the same rate for electricity every day in March.
So I ask, who benefitted from all that 'free' excess solar electricity? I can tell you who suffered because of all that 'free' excess solar electricity, every consumer of electricity in California, because the utility company is required, by law, to pay a premium price for every solar generated KWh fed into their grid, whether they need it or not, whether or not they can resell it.
Ken
Well, use batteries or flywheels but those lose energy with time.
Or maybe, spend the electricity to pump water to a sealed tank in the mountains and let the water flow down later to power a turbine when you need electricity.
There are many ways but none is perfect...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Also, when there is to much sun solar plants can be disconnected and just not feed the grid.
Wow.
Most solar plants (either domestic, built on private residences, or commercial) are private, and were built to generate profits for the owner based on the premium price utilities - by law - are required to pay for every KWh they feed into the grid.
Every KWh that CA utility paid someone to take was paid for at a premium. California utilities had to pay a premium for electricity it couldn't use, then had to pay someone to take that excess to save their power grid from damaging overload.
Ken
Why are the reporters always writing such a nonsense?
You feed power into the grid: it needs to be consumed. Or you can not feed it in.
And: I guess the solar power was teleported to Arizona, to prevent "overloading a wire"?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Disclaimer: I am not an environmental scientist; I am just another random commentor on a pseudo-anonymous Internet news-aggregator site, like you are; not warranties implied or otherwise on anything I'm about to say.
That being out of the way.. RE: 'Hydroelectric storage of excess energy production': The only possible problem I see with using this technique to store excess produced energy, is environmental; we'd most likely be creating pairs of man-made lakes to make this work, and building new hydroelectric dams and pumping facilities. While those are mature technologies, and relatively benign, our energy needs never seem to decrease, they only ever seem to increase, so over time we'd be building more and more of the same to keep up. At that point we're changing the ecology of large tracts of land in an increasing number of locations, and I'd be a little concered we'd be throwing the ecology of those areas out of balance. Aside from that, I'd also be a little concerned about destroying the natural beauty of what would likely be some of the most spectacular places in California, too. While I think it's a viable technology, I think we need think carefully about what we're doing and what the alternatives are (of which there are several).
It's harder than you think, any sort of 'storage' will be either potentially highly toxic (as in batteries), require lots of investment (like hydro) and take up lots and lots of space. Given California is already paying a premium for their energy, I don't think they want to invest in even more 'waste'.
Given more energy is going to consumed in the future, it's probable that anything they start building now is never going to be used 5-10 years down the road when it will be completed.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Pump water storage is a pretty solid technology as it can store massive amounts of potential energy. But like many things it only works properly under circumstances where you have an abundance water available and also have the space to store that water. And then again we're talking about California here, where you can get fined for wasting water during the rather frequent draughts. Well, at least that's what the internet tells me. I don't live actually there so your mileage may differ.
Electricity is stored in wires. If the wires get full, the solar panels no longer work correctly. The excess energy has to be drained so feedback from the solar panels doesn't damage the sun.
If you went to journalism school, you would know these things.
We don't. The reality is that subsidies are only in place for solar power generation, not storage. And of course, without those subsidies the profitability of solar power generation plummets as well. So for now, we in CA get to pay taxes to private companies to build solar plants to sell power to us, but because we don't pay taxes to private companies to build storage of power we get to pay taxes to other States to take our power and then pay them to sell it back to us. I guess it's a win-win for everyone else...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Could, but rather not. Sea water is rather corrosive, and it's full of horrid organisms that clog up the machinery. You can use seawater for pumped storage, it just means higher maintenance costs. It's also not usually convenient from a landscape perspective - you need a steep slope for pumped storage, like a good hill or small mountain, which you seldom find in a conveniently coastal location. When you do, it's usually in an area prone to erosion.
Seawater pumped storage has been done experimentally, but all large-scale commercial facilities use freshwater.
It's harder than you think, any sort of 'storage' will be either potentially highly toxic (as in batteries), require lots of investment (like hydro) and take up lots and lots of space
"Toxic"? As opposed to fossil fuels or uranium which are just so amazingly safe? Most batteries are recyclable (including lithium batteries) - the only issue is whether it is economical to recycle them. We're looking for the least worst option and everything indicates batteries + solar/wind are likely a major part of the least worst options. Any toxicity from batteries is easily justified in the face of the alternatives.
Hydro simply isn't an option in most locations. It's fine where it's available but the capacity for it is limited and regional.
Just for the record: The sun is still there when you think it is night time, it is just harder for you to see.
Which is why much effort is being directed toward interconnecting disparate grids (and yes, interconnecting has its own downsides).
Why do some people believe that all the crap out there is put out from Russia? There are enough skeptics out there in all countries.
3. explain to taxpayers that solar energy is only available during the day and sunny days are more productive than cloudy ones. I realize most children innately understand this already, but politically brainwashed adults have lost their reasoning skills.
You need simply follow the money to understand why that will never happen.
Power utilities are required to buy every KWh generated by solar panels at a premium price regardless of their need (or lack thereof) for the electricity, if a solar plant owner reduces the solar power they generate, they are the ones losing money - why would they choose to do that unless they are going to be compensated for the electricity they choose not to produce?
Ken
solar energy is only available during the day and sunny days are more productive than cloudy ones
Yes, that's the problem. Why you would pay for such an inconsistent source, then pay again to cover up that problem is what you need to explain.
Yes, but that's very unlikely. For instance, if I use my electric car in the garage as grid storage, the incremental cost for me is almost zero.
You can also tug down giant floats that rise up, running the motors in reverse to generate electricity. They don't even need to come all the way up or go all the way down.
The solar industry is propped up by regulations that deny utility companies the ability to refuse electricity they don't need from either distributed or utility-scale sources. The guarantee that every KWh generated by a solar source will be bought - at a premium - is what convinces investors to back them, but that same regulation increases consumer costs since at times of over-production the utility is running non-solar power plants that can't be spun down as needed, and simultaneously buying unneeded solar power at a premium.
The moment power companies can refuse to buy unneeded solar power is the moment the solar industry stops growing, and electricity prices will start coming down.
Factor in subsidies for manufacturing plants, subsidies for construction/installation of panels, etc. and solar energy in America lives in a special, politically-built protected market.
Before anyone goes off on 'oil industry subsidies' - I've never heard of the gov't cutting a check to cover half the cost of an oil refinery or offering loan guarantees on oil rigs, and the gov't certainly doesn't guarantee oil companies that every gallon of fuel they bring to market will find a buyer at a guaranteed price.
Ken
And do what with the hydrogen? There isn't enough demand or storage capacity and certainly no relationship between the production of the excess energy and need for hydrogen.
No relationship, true. Demand, probably false. We are making ever-increasing amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are actually hitting the streets [of California] now, in fact Honda will give you free fuel if you lease a Clarity FCV. Right now virtually all hydrogen is produced through steam reformation of natural gas, which means more natgas, which means more fracking. What to do with the hydrogen is by far the least of problems.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A lot could be fixed if we just charged residents market rate instead of a fixed rate. This way people can buy smart appliances that take advantage of when the cost of electricity is low, and they can buy or repurpose old batteries to pick up cheap power and resell it when it's expensive.
California is a huge state with an economy larger than that of France. You need 27 Nebraska's to make 1 California. But for all of that size, CA doesn't get any more negotiating power in the federal government. With 2 Californias, we get more representatives in congress and more electoral votes. Some of the stupidity could also go away, like declaring a drought when it's been raining for a month straight in NorCal.
The only down side is that SoCal might join Mexico.
The simple solution is to build a few large bore (2m diameter), high pressure pipes up into lakes in the rocky mountains. Drop them down to pumping stations with holding ponds. During the day when you have excessive solar, you pump water from your holding pond up into the lake at something like 3000 feet differential elevation. At night, when you need power, you let the water discharge down into your holding pond. Designed right this system will recover about 85% of the energy stored. If you are worried about evaporation, you can cover your ponds with ping pong balls (reduces evaporation by 90% plus.)
If you pump that water at 1m/sec up for 6 peak sunny hours per day, from the Bernoulli equation we know that the stored energy would be Volume rate * density * acceleration due to gravity * height of lift * time or:
3.14 m^3/sec * 1000 kg/m^3 * 9.81 m/s^2 * 1000 m * 6h * 3600 sec/h = 665 GigaJoules of stored energy or (*.85 efficiency) ~157MWh of recoverable electricity per day. You would need around 68,000 cubic meters of water to work with (about 6.8 Hectares) in a lake (or you could build 5 holding ponds at elevation that were 20m deep x 30m wide.)
Most natural gas power plants in California generate around this number. The main reason that 10 of these hydro lift systems aren't built post haste is all the environmental nuts that would lose their shit over human beings building pipelines in California and/or using a lake for anything other than squatting next to while meditating...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Assuming there is an excess energy issue, desalinate (and maybe clean) the sea water first. That kills a second bird with the same stone. You still get to re-use some of that power later, and you get more clean drinking water in a drought ridden area. win/win?
Look for anything that costs too much due to energy use to be feasible, and do it. Ex. Open a steel mill and only run it when power is dirt cheap or free.
This is really a very very temporary problem. Giving away power for free will quickly find uses for it. Charge up cars during the day; put batteries or flywheels in each building to offset nightly usage; run CO2 sequestration services (CCS); turn waste into oil; run recycling plants; power a railgun to put stuff into orbit; etc.
Going directly back to the water pumping example, it's used because it's easy and well understood, but you could lift anything up and let it fall back down. Ship rocks up the side of a mountain on a conveyor belt or mining carts or whatever, and let them generate power on their way back down at night.
I suspect that the real truth is that it's not really excessive. There's a temporary imbalance, and they've found a sort of pressure relief. Later, they'll put that to use more effectively. Hopefully, no one builds a long term business around the prospect of this monetarily free energy.
Desalination would be an ideal 'peak absorber' use to shave off the high points in a fluctuating power supply in a state with a long-term shortage of water. But good luck getting California to issue permits for something this obvious before the end of this century.
Pumped storage is a specific example of "potential energy storage". If you are short on water, but have hills and rocks, you can raise and lower the rocks for energy storage. Electric motors can drive containers of rock uphill on rails or via cable to store energy, then bring them back downhill to release it.
That kills a second bird with the same stone
No. You aimed it in the right direction but the stone deflected off the first bird and left the second alone, and it turns out the first bird was stone resistant.
Deslainating is incredibly energy intensive. You won't be desalinating water and then pumping it into storage only to later make electricity from it. You may as well just heat up some large resistor banks to burn off the power or shut down the solar panels. Also desal plants are expensive to make and are not suited to batch processes. So not only will the scheme not work, but you'll pay a lot of money to not see it work too.
Look for anything that costs too much due to energy use to be feasible, and do it. Ex. Open a steel mill and only run it when power is dirt cheap or free.
Oh my god NO!. That's far worse than the desal example. When power goes out at a steel mill it becomes a multi-million dollar event where you have the privilege of replacing a lot of damaged equipment. You can't batch run a steel mill. You can't even safely shut them down without doing any damage.
Some of your latter examples make more sense. Especially the ones which deal with storage or one shot (pun intended) energy users.
It's not zero/one. The greatest electricity demand is on hot days, during the daytime. You can equate solar energy with air conditioners.
OK a new size TV
Other than nuclear there are really no consistent sources of energy. We make them consistent due to engineering in of storage, feed surge and levelling, and careful planning ahead.
Removing the engineered storage component of only solar is dishonest. Remind me again what the USA stores in fossil fuels to ensure stable supply in the market? 700million barrels of oil or something like that, not to mention the amount laying in tankfarms around the country. I know the local coal power plant has a quite small footprint compared to the mountain of coal reserves they have laying beside it to sure if there's a supply issue it won't affect operation. This is quite the opposite for solar where the battery storage system fits in a shipping container for a solar grid covering an entire football field.
Fuel Cells are just not cost effective at this time. According to NREL, they will be, around 2025. Until then, they are a joke.
In regard to portable fuels cells, specifically cars, there is a problem that there are only 36 places in all of the continental US where you can tank up -
(https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html)
Which makes it hard to sell a hydrogen car, because there is no demand and there is no demand because there are no stations, which both feed into slowing development of better cells, because there's no market.
One way to punch out of this mess is for California to start making hydrogen, and give small hydrogen fueling pumps to any gas station that will take one, and now it becomes possible to sell cars, leading to a possible way forwards.
I myself looked into buying the Honda Civic GX, a from-the-factory natural gas vehicle. The problem was that I could never go farther than half a tank from my house (where I would put in my own pump) because there was no place to reliably buy fuel.
I realize that the technology is still limited, but CA. is spending money to give away power, why not do something useful at home with it? According to the comments above, there would be some use for a few combined desalination/electrolysis plants which would be able to make Hydrogen, Oxygen, potable water, and delicious algae rich salt as needed.
By charging and discharging your car batteries for uses other than moving your car, you would be consuming charge/discharge cycles on your relatively expensive batteries designed for your automobile rather than batteries designed for fixed location storage (which would likely be cheaper as weight and compactness and certain safety considerations would be substantially less costly for the fixed location storage batteries.).
The cost of what you describe can be a very expensive replacement of your electric car batteries or substantial reduction in resell value of your electric car. That's quite a bit above zero.
Using batteries from electric cars for fixed storage after the batteries don't hold enough of a charge for automotive use might be more cost effective (both financially and environmentally) than discarding and recycling them.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I recently read about a cool inverted version of this. You put bigass balloons in the ocean down a hundred feet, and use the excess energy to inflate them. When you want your energy back, you are using the pressure from the water to drive the air out and run a turbine. I think it's in testing somewhere, Spain perhaps?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Solar power is available every day, there is no need for the day to be "sunny", just for there to be light. Northern European countries like Denmark where they do not have many "sunny" days produce a lot of solar power without problem. The myth that you need "sunny" days was produced by those who want to denigrate alternative power and who do not understand it.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Germany... underwater energy storage
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Thank GOD I live in Texas (Katy, TX just west of Houston) were I can choose my own re-seller. My 12 month contract is 5 cents per kw hour. Last month, paid under 50 bucks in electricity. That's right bitches! We got smart people that can actually read and understand the free market to make it work. Last time they deregulaed the market in California, it was an epic fail. Again, exact opposite in Texas, we know how to make it work!
http://www.powertochoose.org/
Life is not for the lazy.
Pump water storage is a pretty solid technology as it can store massive amounts of potential energy. But like many things it only works properly under circumstances where you have an abundance water available and also have the space to store that water. And then again we're talking about California here, where you can get fined for wasting water during the rather frequent draughts. Well, at least that's what the internet tells me. I don't live actually there so your mileage may differ.
California does pump water back into the San Luis reservoir at night with spare base load electricity. Assuming there is enough water in the river, there is no reason they could not do that during the day while they're experiencing a surplus of solar. Of course, there would probably be huge environmental impacts from this due to the fact that the reservoir would not be letting any water out for a 24 hour period potentially.
From TFA: "Californians now pay roughly 50% more than the rest of the country for power."
And from the TFA: "California is generating so much solar energy that it is resorting to paying other states to take the excess electricity in order to prevent overloading power lines."
Are we too brain dead to put these two statements together and realize that this is not a technological problem, it is a political problem? Why are Californian's PAYING EXTRA for electricity that is not being delivered to them, but instead being sent to Arizona FOR FREE along with a check to add insult to injury?!?!
Lower the damn price being gouged out of local Californians on that electricity and let local people find good uses for it for goodness sake! The corruption and retardation of California just blows my mind... You people in California should be demanding someone be held criminally accountable. Instead, you're shrugging and saying someone needs to invent better storage technology. WTF?