This summer, we installed rooftop solar panels. More than any cost-benefit analysis, I was worried about heat waves, specifically a wet bulb event. On that basis, the system will have provided...
This summer, we installed rooftop solar panels. More than any cost-benefit analysis, I was worried about heat waves, specifically a wet bulb event. On that basis, the system will have provided it's intended value when I can run my air conditioners during a summer rolling blackout.
Because this is my principal concern, it's been on my mind in following rooftop solar policies. Where I live, I get to enjoy net metering, and I hope to do so I to the future. What's interesting about the focus on the intermittency of solar power is how the benefits to power grids are overlooked. Texas and California have both benefitted from solar power during their heat waves, allowing them to continue operating. Specifically, the utility operator does not share in the risk or cost of the rooftop solar installation. If the owner experiences a catastrophic loss or the inability to service the debt, the utility operator loses nothing. Meanwhile, the excess power generated by that rooftop solar system alleviates the demand on large power lines to remote large scale power generation, allowing utility operators to provide power with greater continuity to more customers during under demanding conditions without being upgraded.
All this, at no additional cost to the operator. It seems like it would be a dream to the utility operator to have the customer take on the risk and cost of power generation and then for them to make the energy available back to the grid at the point of consumption, decreasing the amount of power that needs to get delivered and allowing the operator to resell that power back to others in the area when it might not otherwise be available at all.
Am I missing something? Shouldn't utility operators be thrilled that residential customers are enhancing the reliability of their grid by producing resellable power at their own expense and risk?
If you've seen what California utility companies got away with in their new net energy metering (NEM) v3 rules, what you're missing is that these private companies were getting pissy about a...
If you've seen what California utility companies got away with in their new net energy metering (NEM) v3 rules, what you're missing is that these private companies were getting pissy about a reduction in profit margins.
I'm not sure about elsewhere, but California was paying 1:1, so if it costs 0.30 at mid peak for 1 kWh, you either pay that much to take it from the utility company or you get paid that much to give it to them. With NEM v3 you get paid 25% of the going rate, so if the rate was 0.30 then you're only getting 0.08 back.
And I've heard about laws being discussed that would effectively make it illegal for renters to have direct access to solar. Literally give control over solar energy production to the utility company even if the landlord owns the solar panels.
Solar is great and helps the grid, but private utility companies don't want to share their profits even if it benefits a city, State, or the entire nation.
I work in the space, and all of the smart people I talk with that have been in clean tech for decades think that vertically integrated investor owned utilities are cooked. They simply do not work,...
I work in the space, and all of the smart people I talk with that have been in clean tech for decades think that vertically integrated investor owned utilities are cooked. They simply do not work, the incentive structure is perverse and results in grids that aren't reliable or cheap.
The future of utility companies is probably gonna be IOUs that own the lines and lease them to smaller companies that actually talk to customers and generators.
I won't lie, it's not going to be easy. IOUs are going to fight tooth and nail every single inch, screaming bloody murder all the way, because they had the golden goose - guaranteed income with basically no risk. Unfortunately they have shown they cannot be trusted with something as vital as the power grid.
If we don't fix these regulatory and market problems preventing more widespread DER (distributed energy resource basically the solar panels and batteries in homes) deployment we're well and truly fucked because our power grid is otherwise very underdeveloped for electrification, and the less reliable a power grid is the more people die.
Thank you for the clear verification of my gut feeling on this. Another instance of the entrenched model being the problem. I only read the first 1/3 of the article, but something about the tone...
Thank you for the clear verification of my gut feeling on this. Another instance of the entrenched model being the problem.
I only read the first 1/3 of the article, but something about the tone and framing just smacked as disingenuous. Immediately I’m asking “but what about batteries?” And challenging the idea that is “turning off a solar panel” equal to “wasting renewable energy”?
I also just leapt to the conclusion that this is just power companies playing games with rates and capacity and seasons- all predictable - and likely predicted- patterns and fluctuations to hose consumers that cut into profits.
I’m super skeptical this article was written in good faith at all, but then I’m very cynical.
I also am very cynical. My recommendation is to get involved in local government and lobby for municipal power. IOUs can be allowed to overbuild and maintain the lines, but nothing else. Actually...
I also am very cynical. My recommendation is to get involved in local government and lobby for municipal power. IOUs can be allowed to overbuild and maintain the lines, but nothing else. Actually getting the city to buy the lines from the IOU is really really hard so kick that can down the road.
Typically what munis look like are leasing the lines from the main IOU (I'm in MI, so my local government is going to lease from DTE). A market solution that can actually work is something like this, where they're leasing these lines and then buying generation to make up for the difference between rooftop solar/wind generation and use.
I also just leapt to the conclusion that this is just power companies playing games with rates and capacity and seasons- all predictable - and likely predicted- patterns and fluctuations to hose consumers that cut into profits.
It's actually even more insidious. In California they have these things called CCAs which is basically what I'm describing - it's a community-run org that leases the lines from the IOU (SDG&E, SCE, PG&E) and purchases power in blocks from generators and collects payment from subscribers. The big IOUs will do literally anything to fuck these guys over, including things like delaying data pushes to them. This is bad because a CCA is still a power company - they need to know past usage so they can estimate future, or they'll be stuck buying power at the last minute to make up for demand spikes. Power is cheaper when you buy big blocks in advance after all.
So if we're going to have a market solution to running power lines we need to make dead fucking certain the incentives match up right and also do proper enforcement so when, say, SDG&E pushes bad Green Button Connect data like they've done frequently for years (big middle finger to San Diego specifically) they actually get fined by regulators for not playing nice.
I love being in a room full of people that know more than me. Great and highly informative post. In a sort of parallel to this I used to know someone that was pretty successful in tech policy who...
I love being in a room full of people that know more than me.
Great and highly informative post.
In a sort of parallel to this I used to know someone that was pretty successful in tech policy who wrote a book about how internet access should be considered a utility and cited several success stories about top-tier gigabit fiber networks built by municipalities at lower costs than all the big players in the US. (I’m keeping names out to avoid anyone getting doxxed)
The amount of astroturfing their book got on Amazon was pretty eye opening- and this was in the oughts - long before it was so commonly known to be a thing on Amazon.
It seemed like there were some telecom social networks that were passing the word along to build up at pile of “industry expert” reviews that shit on this book.
Obviously, the corporate machines that spit out all the propaganda that systemic improvements are bad/dangerous/impossible have only gotten worse since then.
This is why I absolutely drink it in when someone who knows a thing or two about the how and why of a big issue like this can summarize it and have it make sense and cut through the noise.
One of the weirdest things that can happen to you online is being very well informed on something that becomes big news. You suddenly are very aware of all of the astroturfing and lies as they...
One of the weirdest things that can happen to you online is being very well informed on something that becomes big news. You suddenly are very aware of all of the astroturfing and lies as they happen, where with most other topics you have to do a lot of work to figure out the truth. Lets you figure out which outlets and journalists are good and which ones are bullshitting.
You're welcome! One of my favorite things about the Internet is getting to learn from people who really truly know what they're talking about. I don't claim to be an expert but I know a fair bit. It's something that's basically gone from reddit now. I miss it a lot.
Oh my god yes. Absolutely. I spent hours defending that book in forums… and don’t even get me started on the absolutely completely fabricated bullshit that is ISP bandwidth usage caps. Chaps my...
Oh my god yes. Absolutely. I spent hours defending that book in forums… and don’t even get me started on the absolutely completely fabricated bullshit that is ISP bandwidth usage caps. Chaps my ass to no end and always will.
I too miss that old Reddit. I also used to have a killer Twitter network full of brilliant kind people generously contributing to great discussions.
Now I’m just sounding like a GenX curmudgeon. Thanks for the talk.
So they take 1 kWh from you, sell it to your neighbor for $0.30 and pay you $0.08. Fuck that. They already charge service and maintenance fees, they're robbing you in order to double dip. I'm...
So they take 1 kWh from you, sell it to your neighbor for $0.30 and pay you $0.08. Fuck that. They already charge service and maintenance fees, they're robbing you in order to double dip.
I'm lucky enough to live in an area that pays 1:1 as they should.
Solar drives down the cost of electricity when the sun is shining. This helps until enough solar panels are installed, but beyond that point it doesn't increase the reliability of the grid from a...
Solar drives down the cost of electricity when the sun is shining. This helps until enough solar panels are installed, but beyond that point it doesn't increase the reliability of the grid from a utility's point of view, because they're more concerned with worst-case scenarios.
Batteries might help reduce the need to expand the grid, though? One small utility plans to give customers batteries as an alternative to building more power lines. Perhaps others will follow?
Seems like batteries are still not going to solve winter heating peak power issues though, no? If there is a string of cold dark days in the middle of winter, those batteries are going to exhaust...
Seems like batteries are still not going to solve winter heating peak power issues though, no? If there is a string of cold dark days in the middle of winter, those batteries are going to exhaust themselves and the power is going to necessarily come from a central utility?
Well, here's what they say: It seems the power sources are still there, but the grid doesn't need to be upgraded as much, and it gives them time to restore power. In California, power gets cut in...
Well, here's what they say:
Many electric utilities are putting up lots of new power lines as they rely more on renewable energy and try to make grids more resilient in bad weather. But a Vermont utility is proposing a very different approach: It wants to install batteries at most homes to make sure its customers never go without electricity.
The company, Green Mountain Power, proposed buying batteries, burying power lines and strengthening overhead cables in a filing with state regulators on Monday. It said its plan would be cheaper than building a lot of new lines and power plants.
It seems the power sources are still there, but the grid doesn't need to be upgraded as much, and it gives them time to restore power.
In California, power gets cut in some rural areas when the risk of fire gets too high. Burying lines would be an expensive fix. Perhaps an alternative would be battery backup?
Utility operators need to build out their infrastructure for peak load. This might mean a hot but cloudy day, demand for AC when people get home and the sun is setting, or in cold locations, heat...
Utility operators need to build out their infrastructure for peak load. This might mean a hot but cloudy day, demand for AC when people get home and the sun is setting, or in cold locations, heat pumps and their electric auxiliary (typically resistive heat strips). Since solar only works when the sun is shining, it does not result in a reduction of infrastructure investment required to supply energy to the grid at peak load. It only reduces runtime, some of the time.
The issue of transmission equipment is certainly one angle, but there are other considerations. One of the things plant operators value above everything else is predictability. In order to connect...
The issue of transmission equipment is certainly one angle, but there are other considerations.
One of the things plant operators value above everything else is predictability. In order to connect their plant to the grid, they must make promises of availability to NERC. Basically they state "I will be able to supply x megawatts at $n when requested between <start date> and <end date>." NERC will hold them to this promise and fine them if they cannot meet it.
In order to ensure that they can meet their availability requirements, operators will often buy fuel far in advance, promising to purchase some tons of fuel over a time period at a price agreed upon today. When everyone is buying power from them, this works pretty well; they usually get a decent price on the fuel they know they are going to have to use when NERC demands they supply power to the grid.
When you start adding consumer solar, the predictability of availability and demand becomes less clear. When states mandate net metering, the operators have to account for consumer solar input, but often there's not a good mechanism for them to predict what will be happening with your equipment.
How much solar is installed? Did the capacity increase since last they looked? Will all the solar capacity be available on any given day when NERC requests peak input? What if it's cloudy or raining? What if your equipment is broken? There's now a possibility that the operator bought more fuel than necessary, wasting money (from their perspective). Alternatively, they try and predict supply, mess it up, and now can't meet NERC demands and are fined.
So operators are, on average, keen to ensure both predictable income (to cover fuel costs) and predictable demand (to ensure their fuel contracts don't provide "surplus" fuel and to avoid NERC penalties). Unfortunately this tends to have them shit on "disruptive" power sources like consumer solar.
It could be proposed that NERC back down a bit on penalizing operators, but then what happens when consumers experience brownouts or blackouts because operators were unable to predict usage exactly? This may also be alleviated by storage mechanisms (mega batteries or physical storage means), but this requires an up-front investment that may not see return for a very long time (if at all; particularly if net metering reduces the ROI on the fuel operators buy).
It ends up being a sticky situation because we have for-profit power generation. If all generation was state-owned, the costs of infrastructure change could be absorbed broadly as an overall improvement for everyone. But since we don't have that, we need to be cognizant of the investments required and careful not to pull the rug out from under current operators (and leave everyone in the dark).
How does this differ from industrial solar? When a low number of people are adding solar, there shouldn't be any meaningful changes in the amount of power generated. Whereas at higher numbers...
When you start adding consumer solar, the predictability of availability and demand becomes less clear. When states mandate net metering, the operators have to account for consumer solar input, but often there's not a good mechanism for them to predict what will be happening with your equipment.
How does this differ from industrial solar? When a low number of people are adding solar, there shouldn't be any meaningful changes in the amount of power generated. Whereas at higher numbers things should average out to be more predictable. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong generally, but we aren't at the stage of both widely-distributed and "available" consumer solar yet. This is where the grid starts to run into the transmission issues...
No, you're not wrong generally, but we aren't at the stage of both widely-distributed and "available" consumer solar yet. This is where the grid starts to run into the transmission issues described in the article. Solar installed at what has traditionally been the "end point" of distribution may not produce power that can be made available elsewhere. Regardless, operators are being held to NERC standards that consider availability for the entire grid that the operator is attached to.
This was my point about NERC backing down in availability / capacity requirements. They can try and make it a little less punishing for utility operators when the grid is less predictable. They (NERC) aren't deaf to this; they are working on new standards that are better at accounting for renewables, but they are more bureaucratic than not so it's a slow process.
We have mostly clean energy from hydro plants where I live but they have a similar problem when expanding to include solar and wind. The rivers flow at their peak when the wind is blowing the...
We have mostly clean energy from hydro plants where I live but they have a similar problem when expanding to include solar and wind. The rivers flow at their peak when the wind is blowing the strongest and solar is most reliable. But there still aren't great ways to quickly store that excess for later when it's needed most and a lot of it is wasted. We really need cheap and reliable battery banks built to help even things out. I'm hoping tech like Iron Air Batteries will eventually help with that.
I don't mean to trivialize the nuances of power generation. My understanding though is that in an environment with lots of hydro opportunity, wouldn't wind and solar give you the chance to use...
I don't mean to trivialize the nuances of power generation. My understanding though is that in an environment with lots of hydro opportunity, wouldn't wind and solar give you the chance to use pumped hydro storage more effectively? You can build reservoirs to store water from the stream during high solar and wind, and be able to drain them when those resources aren't available. I think pumped hydro storage usually buys cheap electricity from the grid at low priced to fill the reservoir and then discharges at high electricity prices back to the grid. I'd think abundant solar and wind would make this an even better deal. Obviously there's land and water right issues you wouldn't have with battery storage, however I'd be surprised if the relative maturity and reliability of the technology wouldn't tip the scales in it's favor right now.
I'm also very excited for emerging storage technologies like Iron Air Batteries. I think the Nickle Hydrogen batteries from Enervenue are also an exciting tech you might find interesting. Still, I think there's a lot of other storage opportunities with mature technologies that shouldn't be overlooked since we can implement them now rather than waiting on emerging tech to scale.
Yes, and some of that is being done but it's not very efficient and constructing new reservoirs is very expensive in terms of not just land but environmental regulations to protect wildlife etc.
wouldn't wind and solar give you the chance to use pumped hydro storage more effectively?
Yes, and some of that is being done but it's not very efficient and constructing new reservoirs is very expensive in terms of not just land but environmental regulations to protect wildlife etc.
I think you're right, both are absolutely going to be needed and will both have high demand. Iron-air batteries (and other low density but cheap and/or longer life batteries) are great because...
I think you're right, both are absolutely going to be needed and will both have high demand. Iron-air batteries (and other low density but cheap and/or longer life batteries) are great because they free up lithium batteries for applications where you need higher energy density (like transportation applications). In addition being able to use mixed battery systems to do better load following like you suggested. Iron-air for slow moving changes and lithium to match peaks and rapid fluctuations.
I think super capacitors are also going to be valuable to manage interment power generation for similar reasons. Not sure if you saw this article a few days ago, but high energy density super capacitors would also be really valuable in helping manage costs while increasing storage opportunities. If that carbon technology can scale, or a similarly cheap technology emerges, I think we'll possibly see supercapacitor-battery hybrid storage emerge which is really exciting to consider!
Dam reservoirs really are the cheapest. The next best thing would be to temporarily shut down a fossil fuel plant in a neighboring area and send the power that way.
Dam reservoirs really are the cheapest. The next best thing would be to temporarily shut down a fossil fuel plant in a neighboring area and send the power that way.
This summer, we installed rooftop solar panels. More than any cost-benefit analysis, I was worried about heat waves, specifically a wet bulb event. On that basis, the system will have provided it's intended value when I can run my air conditioners during a summer rolling blackout.
Because this is my principal concern, it's been on my mind in following rooftop solar policies. Where I live, I get to enjoy net metering, and I hope to do so I to the future. What's interesting about the focus on the intermittency of solar power is how the benefits to power grids are overlooked. Texas and California have both benefitted from solar power during their heat waves, allowing them to continue operating. Specifically, the utility operator does not share in the risk or cost of the rooftop solar installation. If the owner experiences a catastrophic loss or the inability to service the debt, the utility operator loses nothing. Meanwhile, the excess power generated by that rooftop solar system alleviates the demand on large power lines to remote large scale power generation, allowing utility operators to provide power with greater continuity to more customers during under demanding conditions without being upgraded.
All this, at no additional cost to the operator. It seems like it would be a dream to the utility operator to have the customer take on the risk and cost of power generation and then for them to make the energy available back to the grid at the point of consumption, decreasing the amount of power that needs to get delivered and allowing the operator to resell that power back to others in the area when it might not otherwise be available at all.
Am I missing something? Shouldn't utility operators be thrilled that residential customers are enhancing the reliability of their grid by producing resellable power at their own expense and risk?
E: Formatting.
If you've seen what California utility companies got away with in their new net energy metering (NEM) v3 rules, what you're missing is that these private companies were getting pissy about a reduction in profit margins.
I'm not sure about elsewhere, but California was paying 1:1, so if it costs 0.30 at mid peak for 1 kWh, you either pay that much to take it from the utility company or you get paid that much to give it to them. With NEM v3 you get paid 25% of the going rate, so if the rate was 0.30 then you're only getting 0.08 back.
And I've heard about laws being discussed that would effectively make it illegal for renters to have direct access to solar. Literally give control over solar energy production to the utility company even if the landlord owns the solar panels.
Solar is great and helps the grid, but private utility companies don't want to share their profits even if it benefits a city, State, or the entire nation.
I work in the space, and all of the smart people I talk with that have been in clean tech for decades think that vertically integrated investor owned utilities are cooked. They simply do not work, the incentive structure is perverse and results in grids that aren't reliable or cheap.
The future of utility companies is probably gonna be IOUs that own the lines and lease them to smaller companies that actually talk to customers and generators.
I won't lie, it's not going to be easy. IOUs are going to fight tooth and nail every single inch, screaming bloody murder all the way, because they had the golden goose - guaranteed income with basically no risk. Unfortunately they have shown they cannot be trusted with something as vital as the power grid.
If we don't fix these regulatory and market problems preventing more widespread DER (distributed energy resource basically the solar panels and batteries in homes) deployment we're well and truly fucked because our power grid is otherwise very underdeveloped for electrification, and the less reliable a power grid is the more people die.
Thank you for the clear verification of my gut feeling on this. Another instance of the entrenched model being the problem.
I only read the first 1/3 of the article, but something about the tone and framing just smacked as disingenuous. Immediately I’m asking “but what about batteries?” And challenging the idea that is “turning off a solar panel” equal to “wasting renewable energy”?
I also just leapt to the conclusion that this is just power companies playing games with rates and capacity and seasons- all predictable - and likely predicted- patterns and fluctuations to hose consumers that cut into profits.
I’m super skeptical this article was written in good faith at all, but then I’m very cynical.
I also am very cynical. My recommendation is to get involved in local government and lobby for municipal power. IOUs can be allowed to overbuild and maintain the lines, but nothing else. Actually getting the city to buy the lines from the IOU is really really hard so kick that can down the road.
Typically what munis look like are leasing the lines from the main IOU (I'm in MI, so my local government is going to lease from DTE). A market solution that can actually work is something like this, where they're leasing these lines and then buying generation to make up for the difference between rooftop solar/wind generation and use.
It's actually even more insidious. In California they have these things called CCAs which is basically what I'm describing - it's a community-run org that leases the lines from the IOU (SDG&E, SCE, PG&E) and purchases power in blocks from generators and collects payment from subscribers. The big IOUs will do literally anything to fuck these guys over, including things like delaying data pushes to them. This is bad because a CCA is still a power company - they need to know past usage so they can estimate future, or they'll be stuck buying power at the last minute to make up for demand spikes. Power is cheaper when you buy big blocks in advance after all.
So if we're going to have a market solution to running power lines we need to make dead fucking certain the incentives match up right and also do proper enforcement so when, say, SDG&E pushes bad Green Button Connect data like they've done frequently for years (big middle finger to San Diego specifically) they actually get fined by regulators for not playing nice.
I love being in a room full of people that know more than me.
Great and highly informative post.
In a sort of parallel to this I used to know someone that was pretty successful in tech policy who wrote a book about how internet access should be considered a utility and cited several success stories about top-tier gigabit fiber networks built by municipalities at lower costs than all the big players in the US. (I’m keeping names out to avoid anyone getting doxxed)
The amount of astroturfing their book got on Amazon was pretty eye opening- and this was in the oughts - long before it was so commonly known to be a thing on Amazon.
It seemed like there were some telecom social networks that were passing the word along to build up at pile of “industry expert” reviews that shit on this book.
Obviously, the corporate machines that spit out all the propaganda that systemic improvements are bad/dangerous/impossible have only gotten worse since then.
This is why I absolutely drink it in when someone who knows a thing or two about the how and why of a big issue like this can summarize it and have it make sense and cut through the noise.
I think I’m trying to say thanks here. Thanks.
One of the weirdest things that can happen to you online is being very well informed on something that becomes big news. You suddenly are very aware of all of the astroturfing and lies as they happen, where with most other topics you have to do a lot of work to figure out the truth. Lets you figure out which outlets and journalists are good and which ones are bullshitting.
You're welcome! One of my favorite things about the Internet is getting to learn from people who really truly know what they're talking about. I don't claim to be an expert but I know a fair bit. It's something that's basically gone from reddit now. I miss it a lot.
Oh my god yes. Absolutely. I spent hours defending that book in forums… and don’t even get me started on the absolutely completely fabricated bullshit that is ISP bandwidth usage caps. Chaps my ass to no end and always will.
I too miss that old Reddit. I also used to have a killer Twitter network full of brilliant kind people generously contributing to great discussions.
Now I’m just sounding like a GenX curmudgeon. Thanks for the talk.
So they take 1 kWh from you, sell it to your neighbor for $0.30 and pay you $0.08. Fuck that. They already charge service and maintenance fees, they're robbing you in order to double dip.
I'm lucky enough to live in an area that pays 1:1 as they should.
Solar drives down the cost of electricity when the sun is shining. This helps until enough solar panels are installed, but beyond that point it doesn't increase the reliability of the grid from a utility's point of view, because they're more concerned with worst-case scenarios.
Batteries might help reduce the need to expand the grid, though? One small utility plans to give customers batteries as an alternative to building more power lines. Perhaps others will follow?
Seems like batteries are still not going to solve winter heating peak power issues though, no? If there is a string of cold dark days in the middle of winter, those batteries are going to exhaust themselves and the power is going to necessarily come from a central utility?
Well, here's what they say:
It seems the power sources are still there, but the grid doesn't need to be upgraded as much, and it gives them time to restore power.
In California, power gets cut in some rural areas when the risk of fire gets too high. Burying lines would be an expensive fix. Perhaps an alternative would be battery backup?
Oh, I definitely think battery backup is useful and solves a lot of problems.
Utility operators need to build out their infrastructure for peak load. This might mean a hot but cloudy day, demand for AC when people get home and the sun is setting, or in cold locations, heat pumps and their electric auxiliary (typically resistive heat strips). Since solar only works when the sun is shining, it does not result in a reduction of infrastructure investment required to supply energy to the grid at peak load. It only reduces runtime, some of the time.
The issue of transmission equipment is certainly one angle, but there are other considerations.
One of the things plant operators value above everything else is predictability. In order to connect their plant to the grid, they must make promises of availability to NERC. Basically they state "I will be able to supply x megawatts at $n when requested between <start date> and <end date>." NERC will hold them to this promise and fine them if they cannot meet it.
In order to ensure that they can meet their availability requirements, operators will often buy fuel far in advance, promising to purchase some tons of fuel over a time period at a price agreed upon today. When everyone is buying power from them, this works pretty well; they usually get a decent price on the fuel they know they are going to have to use when NERC demands they supply power to the grid.
When you start adding consumer solar, the predictability of availability and demand becomes less clear. When states mandate net metering, the operators have to account for consumer solar input, but often there's not a good mechanism for them to predict what will be happening with your equipment.
How much solar is installed? Did the capacity increase since last they looked? Will all the solar capacity be available on any given day when NERC requests peak input? What if it's cloudy or raining? What if your equipment is broken? There's now a possibility that the operator bought more fuel than necessary, wasting money (from their perspective). Alternatively, they try and predict supply, mess it up, and now can't meet NERC demands and are fined.
So operators are, on average, keen to ensure both predictable income (to cover fuel costs) and predictable demand (to ensure their fuel contracts don't provide "surplus" fuel and to avoid NERC penalties). Unfortunately this tends to have them shit on "disruptive" power sources like consumer solar.
It could be proposed that NERC back down a bit on penalizing operators, but then what happens when consumers experience brownouts or blackouts because operators were unable to predict usage exactly? This may also be alleviated by storage mechanisms (mega batteries or physical storage means), but this requires an up-front investment that may not see return for a very long time (if at all; particularly if net metering reduces the ROI on the fuel operators buy).
It ends up being a sticky situation because we have for-profit power generation. If all generation was state-owned, the costs of infrastructure change could be absorbed broadly as an overall improvement for everyone. But since we don't have that, we need to be cognizant of the investments required and careful not to pull the rug out from under current operators (and leave everyone in the dark).
How does this differ from industrial solar? When a low number of people are adding solar, there shouldn't be any meaningful changes in the amount of power generated. Whereas at higher numbers things should average out to be more predictable. Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong generally, but we aren't at the stage of both widely-distributed and "available" consumer solar yet. This is where the grid starts to run into the transmission issues described in the article. Solar installed at what has traditionally been the "end point" of distribution may not produce power that can be made available elsewhere. Regardless, operators are being held to NERC standards that consider availability for the entire grid that the operator is attached to.
This was my point about NERC backing down in availability / capacity requirements. They can try and make it a little less punishing for utility operators when the grid is less predictable. They (NERC) aren't deaf to this; they are working on new standards that are better at accounting for renewables, but they are more bureaucratic than not so it's a slow process.
We have mostly clean energy from hydro plants where I live but they have a similar problem when expanding to include solar and wind. The rivers flow at their peak when the wind is blowing the strongest and solar is most reliable. But there still aren't great ways to quickly store that excess for later when it's needed most and a lot of it is wasted. We really need cheap and reliable battery banks built to help even things out. I'm hoping tech like Iron Air Batteries will eventually help with that.
I don't mean to trivialize the nuances of power generation. My understanding though is that in an environment with lots of hydro opportunity, wouldn't wind and solar give you the chance to use pumped hydro storage more effectively? You can build reservoirs to store water from the stream during high solar and wind, and be able to drain them when those resources aren't available. I think pumped hydro storage usually buys cheap electricity from the grid at low priced to fill the reservoir and then discharges at high electricity prices back to the grid. I'd think abundant solar and wind would make this an even better deal. Obviously there's land and water right issues you wouldn't have with battery storage, however I'd be surprised if the relative maturity and reliability of the technology wouldn't tip the scales in it's favor right now.
I'm also very excited for emerging storage technologies like Iron Air Batteries. I think the Nickle Hydrogen batteries from Enervenue are also an exciting tech you might find interesting. Still, I think there's a lot of other storage opportunities with mature technologies that shouldn't be overlooked since we can implement them now rather than waiting on emerging tech to scale.
Yes, and some of that is being done but it's not very efficient and constructing new reservoirs is very expensive in terms of not just land but environmental regulations to protect wildlife etc.
I wonder if iron air batteries will still be as heavily pursued with the recent lithium deposit discovery
I think you'ld want lots of both. Lithium for fast charging and helping with short power spikes and iron for slow charging long-term supply.
I think you're right, both are absolutely going to be needed and will both have high demand. Iron-air batteries (and other low density but cheap and/or longer life batteries) are great because they free up lithium batteries for applications where you need higher energy density (like transportation applications). In addition being able to use mixed battery systems to do better load following like you suggested. Iron-air for slow moving changes and lithium to match peaks and rapid fluctuations.
I think super capacitors are also going to be valuable to manage interment power generation for similar reasons. Not sure if you saw this article a few days ago, but high energy density super capacitors would also be really valuable in helping manage costs while increasing storage opportunities. If that carbon technology can scale, or a similarly cheap technology emerges, I think we'll possibly see supercapacitor-battery hybrid storage emerge which is really exciting to consider!
Dam reservoirs really are the cheapest. The next best thing would be to temporarily shut down a fossil fuel plant in a neighboring area and send the power that way.