# Rolling Blackouts in New England ?



## peakbagger (May 4, 2018)

Lots of news out there with respect to the potential for Rolling Blackouts a few winters from now in the region. All sorts of parties are trying to build political support to finance their vision of the regions future power grid as whoever wins gets access to the proverbial "cookie jar" of billions of dollars spent on power in the region. Add in major change in national political trend away from green power to cheap power and it adds to the sense of urgency. Previously the "apple cart" was the Clean Power Plan that would be nationwide and institute limits of carbon use for power generation. This would have equalized power costs somewhat across the country as cheap fossil, mostly coal generation would get priced out of the market by assigning carbon costs that would need to be offset with non carbon generation. New England and the West coast were already doing this and as a result power costs were high. Areas dependent on coal voted overwhelmingly for the current administration and the administration has attempted to reward those areas by dumping the CPP. 

This and other issues puts New England in a "pickle", the prior New England plan was let the coal plants go off line backed up by cheap put considerably lower carbon natural gas generation with a large renewable portfolio. Unfortunately, key natural gas pipelines haven't been built into the region so that cheap natural gas isn't available in peak demand periods which means other sources of power are needed during cold periods where much of the gas capacity is locked up for heating demand. The further make things interesting, the nuke industry has figured out that they have the region by the short hairs and are demanding guaranteed subsidies to keep their plants running. The nukes were mostly old (except for Seabrook) so if they don't get the subsidy they close down further removing options.

ISO New England, the regional electric grid operator is in theory a non profit but has a decided interest in getting larger by getting their nose in the tent of the natural gas supply. They have been legitimately raising the alarm that the assumption that shortage of peak gas supply is a big issue for potential electric power reliability. Hydro Quebec is also anxiously waiting at the border as the only way they grow their system (and organization) is to hook New England into long term contracts so they can justify building new dams. They already have Vermont hooked and are pushing hard to get Mass and Connecticut hooked on hydro. 

Other regional interests have just responded to ISO's contention that the "sky is falling" with a decidedly different opinion

http://indepthnh.org/2018/05/03/new-england-wont-be-rationing-electricity-despite-alarmist-warnings/

http://indepthnh.org/2018/05/03/rep...-fuel-security-during-new-england-cold-snaps/

 Of course the authors of the competing study have their own agenda that they don't necessarily list.


----------



## woodgeek (May 5, 2018)

Um, I usually agree with you @peakbagger, but I'm having a harder time with this one.  I'll reread and keep trying.

The issue is not Cheap vs Green.  Green IS Cheap.  And Green's backup power, natural gas, is also cheap.

New England IS unique in the mess it has made of its power systems....the fact that is has low renewable penetration (and at much higher cost than elsewhere), the nation's highest retail costs, no real plan, low excess capacity, etc. 

And the nation's leakiest natural gas retail grid.  And a bunch of homeowners still burning freaking diesel to heat their homes (now phased out everywhere else in the country) b/c they are afraid of electricity or gas grid outages or shortages or price spikes.  And apparently with good reason.

I think the likeliest explanation is NIMBYism (common everywhere), quasi-legal market manipulation/profiteering by the utilities, and a bunch of corrupt politicians who allow it.

The rest of the country is decarbonizing its grid and saving money at the same time, without the CPP or carbon pricing.  But when I talk about that to anyone from New England their mouth falls open and they get a vacant stare like what I am talking about is impossible.  Then they start ranting about how big their electric bill is again.

They **think** they are energy innovators b/c Boston is an amazing 'innovation hub' and they have a couple toy wind turbines along I-95 (?!?), when if fact they seem to be stuck in a 1990s mindset.


----------



## kennyp2339 (May 6, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> The rest of the country is decarbonizing its grid and saving money at the same time, without the CPP or carbon pricing


Politics and population density are the 2 biggest factors for our region.


----------



## peakbagger (May 6, 2018)

woodgeek said:


> Um, I usually agree with you @peakbagger, but I'm having a harder time with this one.  I'll reread and keep trying.
> The rest of the country is decarbonizing its grid and saving money at the same time, without the CPP or carbon pricing.  But when I talk about that to anyone from New England their mouth falls open and they get a vacant stare like what I am talking about is impossible.  Then they start ranting about how big their electric bill is again.
> .



Not sure on your contention that the rest of the country is decarbonizing the grid. The CPP just established a unimform benchmark that states had to meet. When the CPP was announced New England had to do little or nothing meet the standards as they were already very close to meeting the standard . I think the "left coast states" also met or exceeded but a whole lot of areas in between were not especially the southeast. Without a national benchmark it comes down to some states would rather run cheap fossil now and get the short term economic benefits of cheap power and worry about the environment later.


----------



## CaptSpiff (May 6, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> Not sure on your contention that the rest of the country is decarbonizing the grid. The CPP just established a uniform benchmark that states had to meet. When the CPP was announced New England had to do little or nothing meet the standards as they were already very close to meeting the standard . I think the "left coast states" also met or exceeded but a whole lot of areas in between were not especially the southeast. Without a national benchmark it comes down to some states would rather run cheap fossil now and get the short term economic benefits of cheap power and worry about the environment later.



The southeast is a big swath, I'll give some cred's to Florida for their effort going on there. FP&L is half way thru commissioning 6-8 major Solar Farm Projects. These grid level projects are coming in at the 40 to 70 Megawatt range each. That allows them to decommission one or two old coal or oil boiler plants.

Personally, I recall many flights into MCO approaching from the north. During the decent, there was a power plant in south Volusia County (DeBary) that was pumping out an orange/red exhaust plume which rose to about 3000 feet and then got caught in the shear layer heading north. It was a disgusting and shameful sight. Now that plant is closed, chimney and ten story boiler building demo'd. Remaining are the half dozen simple cycle turbines used to peak shave and cover for the solar when it drops off. Hopefully these are NG fired rather than light oil. I can tell you that the air is visibly cleaner, by a lot.


----------



## woodgeek (May 6, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> Not sure on your contention that the rest of the country is decarbonizing the grid. The CPP just established a unimform benchmark that states had to meet. When the CPP was announced New England had to do little or nothing meet the standards as they were already very close to meeting the standard . I think the "left coast states" also met or exceeded but a whole lot of areas in between were not especially the southeast. Without a national benchmark it comes down to some states would rather run cheap fossil now and get the short term economic benefits of cheap power and worry about the environment later.



By decarbonization, I mean immediate switching of coal to cheaper gas and building out wind and solar with significant growth rates.

I looked up some data.  This wiki table from 2016 is the easiest to navigate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

I'll admit to my shameful biases...

--I have a bias for renewable electricity ex hydro, ex biomass, IOW wind+solar.

--looks like NH, VT and ME are doing well with renewable ex hydro (not clear how much is biomass). As a recovering m@sshole I discount those upper New England states in terms of population.

--the lower tier states, MA, CT, RI look like they are lagging the US average (8.4% RE w/o hydro in 2016).

Are they doing better than Appalachia and the Southeast?  Yep.  Do they get a gold star for that?  Not IMO.

My own commonwealth (PA, Appalachia) is not doing great by this metric either, and we generate almost 3X the ex hydro RE as MA, with 2X the population.


----------



## peakbagger (May 6, 2018)

New England has had pretty well established hydro for a long time but its mostly smaller run of the river without significant storage lakes. Maine is the big exception, there are several large storage lakes that were put in in the early to mid 1900's. Unfortunately run of river hydro dams really screw up fish populations, the Atlantic Salmon has been declared extinct is most of the major rivers and contrary to popular belief the dams were what really knocked them out, the subsequent use of rivers as sewers just finished them off. There is a lot of environmental pushback on tidal influenced rivers to rip out dams and several have been taken out in the last decade or so with pressure to take out dams further upstream. At best hydro may hold its own in the region but the reality is any new hydro is going to come from Hydro Quebec and possibly some from New Brunswick. Hydro Quebec's claim is that they are effectively unlimited on the amount of long term hydro they can generate. They have large stretches of boreal forest they can flood and turn into impoundments. There is legacy of abusing the first nations in the area to build these projects but due to bad PR, Hydro Quebec is negotiating better deals on newer projects. There is pretty well backed claim that they also have wiped out a at least one major salmon run.

Maine and NH and to a lesser extent VT had a fairly active biomass portfolio. These facilities burn forest residuals and tend to be small. I do work for them on occasion and with a few hours of my house I have around 10 of them. They mostly were built under PURPA back Carter administration but sadly they cant compete unless they get subsidies and most of the subsidies have been redirected to wind and solar. With the exception of a new 70 MW plant one town over, which was built with long term subsidies, many of the plants are struggling and some could close anytime. A few of the plants I have visited are no longer in business and some have been scrapped.

New England has been getting off coal for quite awhile but the loss of many of the older nukes and gas constraints have kept a few coal plant surviving off capacity payments.

Some areas of country have better renewable resources and milder climate. New England's options are; run several major power lines to Quebec and let Quebec trash its land plus add a significant methane source from the flooded boreal forests which currently act as a long term methane sink, or take the hit and spend a lot of money to ramp up offshore wind. The offshore wind resource could power the region as its far more reliable than on shore wind. Currently offshore wind costs are 4 or 5 orders of magnitude higher then fossil so we wrap back into the problem that it puts the region at competitive disadvantage to do the right thing compared to other areas of the country that dont. Natural Gas is a good bridge fuel to renewables and beats coal or oil anytime but the reality is its still fossil and given the current climate issues even gas isn't going to cut it.


----------



## woodgeek (May 7, 2018)

I think you mean factor of 4 or 5 for offshore, not 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.

And there is plenty of empty in New England...state of the art TALL wind turbines would be cheaper than offshore and have amazing capacity factor...but you're not building em.

And you could build a gas pipeline or two and close those coal plants next year, and cut NE emission by more than all your solar and wind built to date has.

But you're not doing that either.


----------



## maple1 (May 7, 2018)

*A few of the plants I have visited are no longer in business and some have been scrapped.*

Too bad that in some places you have that happening, while at the same time in almost all places you have an increasingly growing issue with garbage and especially waste plastics disposal. Hmm...


----------



## peakbagger (May 7, 2018)

You are correct 4 to 5 times not order of magnitude.

Even with tall wind turbines, the winds is not there reliably on shore even up high. This NREL map pretty well shows it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_...Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg

If you look up near the Canadian border in Maine and NH you can see some tan spots and there are quite few large wind farms in those areas, unfortunately many of those areas are "High Peaks" prized for their wilderness potential and the route of the Appalachian Trail (effectively a National Park ) making them out of bounds. Maine and NH are net producers of power and most of the generation is just supplying Mass CT and RI.

I did "wind" for a short time in my career and the only reason on shore wind farms got built in the region is the local utilities give them preferred long term high prices for local wind power and the production tax credit is pretty darn lucrative. That's why you see negative power price days on occasion as the incentives are so good it still makes sense to run them even if they are paying to get rid of the power. Even with that, many of the major wind farm developers in the region have gone through financial events where their assets got sold at discount to another firm. As the farms age and the reality of having to spend significant dollars to bring cranes back in to replace the gearboxes some just get locked out.

Garbage including plastics can be burned but when the original plants went in, they were not built for the long term and the emissions control equipment was primitive. They were quite dirty and spread a lot of hazardous pollutants downwind. Europe and Japan burns most of their non recyclable waste and have developed near zero emissions plants and some countrys import waste to feed their boilers. Due to the variability of the waste stream there are some very aggressive acid gases formed off of combustion and it will corrode most materials so the old biomass plants cant be economically upgraded plus they are in rural areas while the trash is in urban areas where the public at large don't want to see a plant like this. There are some new waste to energy plants built in the US but the economics are in most states that its cheaper to sort the waste stream and then bury the rest. Now that China is no longer buying low grade recyclables from the US I expect the economics may shift 

I am not sure on your basis that New England has not shifted off of coal. It varies minute by minute but as of right now 9:05 am the fuel mix is 41% natural gas, 36% nuclear, 16% hydro, 7 % renewables and less than 1% oil,. Coal is not even mentioned. I got this from ISO New England https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts. The only time coal and oil ramp up is on particularly cold winter days when the region runs out of natural gas capacity as part of it is allocated for firm customers that need it for heat.  This is only for a few days a year and the gas pipeline companies want to be paid 24/7 365 days a year to put that capacity in place and no one wants to pay the bill. The environmentalist approach is that since natural gas isn't the end solution due to AGW, why not artificially keep gas constraints in place to force the ultimate solution of increased efficiency, load management and renewable generation?


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 7, 2018)

I also did a short stint in wind power in my career.  It is 100% based on subsidies.  The conversations inside the industry are always geared to what subsidies are available.  
It has it's place in remote locations where power is naturally expensive.  Like an island (where diesel generators are in place) or were it is prohibitively expensive to run electricity.


----------



## peakbagger (May 7, 2018)

The firm I worked for in VT did "wind diesel" solutions for Alaskan villages off grid  and remote islands in addition to mainstream. They used 100KW wind turbines designed for real nasty conditions, it cut the use of diesel big time and expect with cheaper storage these days, the diesels probably don't need to run very often.


----------



## begreen (May 7, 2018)

peakbagger said:


> There are some new waste to energy plants built in the US but the economics are in most states that its cheaper to sort the waste stream and then bury the rest. Now that China is no longer buying low grade recyclables from the US I expect the economics may shift


Our local area is examining this option now. There are waste to energy facilities in Spokane and in about an hour south of Portland, OR already. I believe there is one in Portland, ME also.


----------



## maple1 (May 7, 2018)

begreen said:


> Our local area is examining this option now. There are waste to energy facilities in Spokane and in about an hour south of Portland, OR already. I believe there is one in Portland, ME also.



I find it mind boggling that it isn't being more widely examined. Two problems - energy & garbage - with one possible solution, or at least a partial one. Should be all kinds of opportunity there.


----------



## peakbagger (May 7, 2018)

Yes there is one in Portland. I believe its a later version or has had an emissions upgrade. There is/was one in central Maine, PERC, that was handling a lot of towns wastes but they lost their contract. It got replaced with this process  http://fiberight.com/


----------



## peakbagger (May 7, 2018)

Yes there is one in Portland. I believe its a later version or has had an emissions upgrade. There is/was one in central Maine, PERC, that was handling a lot of towns wastes but they lost their contract. It got replaced with this process http://fiberight.com/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 7, 2018)

kennyp2339 said:


> Politics and population density are the 2 biggest factors for our region.



to sum this up, from a krugman recent NYT editorial. "…there is no longer any reason to believe that it would be hard to drastically “decarbonize” the economy. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that doing so would impose any significant economic cost.”

 if anyone believes that, I would like to sell you a coal burning electric plant? link to the rt side , hint not a well liked  or respected site here, hell they did quote Kruggers!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05...rebutted-decarbonization-drawbacks-specified/


----------



## woodgeek (May 8, 2018)

I'm really glad that y'all looked at wind ten years ago and decided it was a waste of time.  My point EXACTLY.

There has been progress since then.

the wiki map is from *2007*. And for a 50m hub height

The updated *2017* map from NREL for a post-2014 standard 110 m hub height is here:

https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data?height=110m

it shows useable wind speeds across New England, no different than NY or PA that have higher wind energy production per capita.

Capacity factor is also higher at that altitude.  In good areas...up to ~50%.





The fact that some folks in New England built some crappy 25m tall turbines ten years ago to bag some crazy subsidies, or get sweet power deals with your corrupt utilities does not imply that the rest of the country can't build REAL, 100m tall machines that actually make power at competitive rates.


----------



## maple1 (May 8, 2018)

Wind power is doing OK here.


----------



## peakbagger (May 8, 2018)

Bummer that you decided to denigrate the discussion with your comments.

_The fact that some folks in New England built some crappy 25m tall turbines ten years ago to bag some crazy subsidies, or get sweet power deals with your corrupt utilities does not imply that the rest of the country can't build REAL, 100m tall machines that actually make power at competitive rates._

There is a 99 MW wind farm near me that uses high hub 3 MW turbines located in a reasonable wind resource area. Original published capacity factor is 25%. The owner is a private company somewhat notorious about not issuing any information but several people who have been involved with the project have indicated that the yearly output is far less than the original stated value. Very few wind farms will admit what there actual production numbers are, they just quote the pretty useless nameplate output.

The other problem is the wind blows when the power is not necessarily needed, Texas has been fighting this for years by adding lots of gas fired peakers to make up the gap as the wind tends to blow at night and stops during the day while the demand is inverse. Sure MW class storage can be added but that drives up installed cost. Thus the negative power rates which end up getting loaded into the power rates the end users pay.

Looking at the link, the offshore wind speeds sure look like better opportunities. The predictable capacity lines up much better in summer with the demand as there is daily sea breeze that forms just offshore due to the temperature difference in the ground temp with the ocean temp. The hotter the day the more of a sea breeze. The population of the region is mostly along the Atlantic shore so Transmission and Distribution costs to move the power to where its needed is easier and line loss is much lower.
_
_


----------



## woodgeek (May 8, 2018)

I apologize for denigrating your discussion.  You seem to have edited the 'green versus cheap' thing from the starter post, so I am ready to let it go.

New England DOES produce wind power, and solar power too.  I am sure that some of those projects are well engineered.

How high are the hubs at the farm near you?  When was it built?

I have had **other** discussions re wind power in this forum that have pointed to and quoted articles about various boondoggle wind projects (in New England IIRC)  that often involve single turbines, in densely populated areas, usually smaller machines, with poor engineering, and fly by night operators that are taking the subsidies and running. 

Conversely, there seem to be large farms all over the country with modern, tall machines, that are cranking out energy, close to 10% of US electricity at this point.  SOP is to put up a tall anemometer for a full calendar year to collect some wind data before breaking ground, and projects then consistently hit their production targets.  I.e. its low risk.

RE off-shore, we don't appear to have the critical equipment (i.e. specialized ships) for building them cheaply and at scale, as they do in the UK, for instance.  They are also OK with a higher per kWh rate over there.  I think off-shore is marginal financially in the US at this time.

But properly done on-shore is stupid cheap all over the country, including many locations in New England that are currently untapped, at least according to NREL.


----------



## peakbagger (May 8, 2018)

The Granite Reliable Wind farm in northern NH went on line in 2013 thus its actually somewhat older than more recent projects. The application says it uses Vestas V-90s with 80 meter hub height and 90 meter rotor diameter. The issue that is limiting turbine size in the area is there is no way economical way to move the nacelles over the open roads and the cranes required to erect them are maxed out for bringing them in over the road. Even if they can make it via public road, the typical installation on ridge lines means the slopes and turning radius on access road get ridiculous. The crane just doesn't have to go there once, typically the gearboxes need to be changed out in less than 10years and that requires a very large crane.

NH has a couple of more wind farms but lack of infrastructure keeps the best sites from getting built. Maine has far more farms but they are stalled on putting in many more as the grid infrastructure needs major expansion. The state dropped over a billion on upgrading a major east west line a few years back and non one is interested in paying the extra couple of billion to add additional capacity that would reach towards the best wind zones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Maine#Mars_Hill

Most industrial wind discussions I have read is that land based wind farms are just about maxed out in the 3 to 4 MW range due to the transportation issue.

Offshore wind farms do not have that limitation and there are some very large units planned as they can be floated in place. They also can be more densely packed as they are not terrain dependent.


----------

