# The California Power Mess



## peakbagger (Aug 19, 2020)

Not sure if folks are keeping up with what is going on with the grid in California in the last week. Rolling blackouts due to inadequate power availability is not a good thing. I guess every major change has to have the guinea pigs and looks like the CA grid is the guinea pig for a grid weighed towards heavy use of renewables. Europe has gotten close but they luckily are connected to very large pumped storage capacity in the Nordic countries plus a block in Scotland. They can charge up the pumped storage during the day and pull out at night. Unfornately the western US does not have much pumped storage. The hydro plants out west do have pond level to work from but environmental regulations seriously limits  significant draw downs.

The grid operator had been warning of inadequate reserves when large baseload fossil plants shut down but politically it was better to go green. As predicted the state is running into the head of the "Duck Curve" where daytime renewables are tapering off while demand is still high in the late day. Grid batteries  are being built and added to the grid but they are just a drop in the bucket to what is needed to keep supply during record heat.

Reportedly many solar firms including Tesla were already going gangbusters selling hybrid solar systems with batteries to supply the remote areas impacted by PGE blackout policy for wildfire prevention.  Of course the standard Tesla contract allows the ability to dispatch the battery power to the grid when power prices are high. This means someone depending on the battery to ride through a black out may start out with no charge. This happened in VT on customers with Tesla batteries during bad weather a year or so ago. Tesla drained the batteries to help reinforce the grid and then the grid went down. I think it happened during the night so the customers where SOL despite having a battery.

I expect the search is already on for a scapegoat. A similar issue  was engineered by Enron years ago where they caused the loss of capacity and then profited by selling back at elevated prices into the grid. There were controls put in place to prevent that manipulation but it made great cover for other sins on the gird

Its going to be interesting to see what comes out of this. The normal approach is a bunch of peakers with large fuel oil tanks but that obviously has a limit due to fuel storage capacity. The current approach is to put batteries at peaker locations so that the batteries handle short term blips prior to firing off the peakers. This reduces the emissions and wear and tear on the peakers.  In this case its not short term blip but a several hour event.  Its probably a good place for flow batteries but that technology seems to be still exhibiting growing pains.

Reportedly once the blackout started, a combination of voluntary load shedding by large users like the US military and emergency drawdowns at hydro dams plus a change in the weather reduced the extent of the blackouts.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 19, 2020)

None of the peakers units around here are oil fired, they are all NG.  Never seen an oil fired unit actually.  Didn't know they even existed.

Secondly, getting away from coal fired base load plants and nuclear base load pl;ants and going to renewable energy will eventually bite everyone because one the dependence on the grid is growing but the grid itself is lacking upkeep and upgrades and most importantly, renewable energy is not dependable.  if the wind don't blow, wind turbines don't make power and if the sun don't shine, solar is worthless and non withstanding, solar is a net polluter, the elements used to make the panels come from major polluting countries (China), the panels degrade in output every year with a projected 20 year useful lifespan and finally, disposal of a solar 'farm' is all hazardous waste.  I really dislike the term 'solar farm'  It's not a farm at all, it's an industrial installation and takes viable farmland out of production.


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 19, 2020)

The peakers I worked on in New England are dual fuel, natural gas and distillate fuel that is #1 or jet fuel. Large blocks of Gas has to be requested a day ahead unless someone wants to pay a major premium for firm gas so if there is a need to dispatch the peaker they usually start on oil and then if its long outage they do have the option to switch to gas.  I also worked on a peaker in Delaware and that also was dual fuel for the same reasons.  If turbine is set up for dual fuel gas is easy it the oil that is a PITA to tune. The new plants we built even had SCRs on them to reduce NOx the Delware one was an old timer and it was straight to atmosphere. 

Your other statements are debatable but feel free to start multiple threads.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 19, 2020)

Sounds like motivation for conservation.   


Insulation, it's cheap and will cut down on summer cooling and winter heating.   Where else is the average house going to significantly cut energy usage?  Lightbulbs?   *rolls eyes*  I haven't worried about lights being a serious draw of power since CFLs came out.  LEDs are even better.  Refrigerators use a lot of power too.


----------



## brenndatomu (Aug 19, 2020)

These power grid issue are going to turn into a real chit show IMO...the greenies keep pushing everything to electric and we barely have the grid to run what's here now...and its aging...and we keep shutting down more and more base load plants...yup, I see a storm a brewing.


EatenByLimestone said:


> Refrigerators use a lot of power too.


Yup, anything with a motor...motors are still responsible for the better part of the grid load...when someone figures out how to do with motors what has been done with lighting...then we will have something!


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 19, 2020)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Refrigerators use a lot of power too.



Meh, since the invention of the kill-a-watt gadget you can easily show that the modern refrigerator does not use a "lot" of power. Hardly anything really. Same as light bulbs and these alleged vampire loads from the wall warts. Heat pumps, dehumidifiers, water heating, ovens, clothes dryers, space heating, water pumping, hot tubs, those things use some power.

For the topic of the thread. I have my own peaking plant. It's a gasoline generator. If the power goes down a few times a year, and it does, then we crank up the genset. If I lived in CA then I would have an automatic standby genset and not worry about this at all.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 19, 2020)

I think the only way CA is going to solve their power issue is to let the market dictate the price of the electricity.    If you want to cool your house down to 68 in the summer, prepare to open up that wallet.   To some, it'll be worth it.  To others, it won't.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 19, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> The peakers I worked on in New England are dual fuel, natural gas and distillate fuel that is #1 or jet fuel. Large blocks of Gas has to be requested a day ahead unless someone wants to pay a major premium for firm gas so if there is a need to dispatch the peaker they usually start on oil and then if its long outage they do have the option to switch to gas.  I also worked on a peaker in Delaware and that also was dual fuel for the same reasons.  If turbine is set up for dual fuel gas is easy it the oil that is a PITA to tune. The new plants we built even had SCRs on them to reduce NOx the Delware one was an old timer and it was straight to atmosphere.
> 
> Your other statements are debatable but feel free to start multiple threads.


Everything is debatable today.  Just stating my position.  If you agree, fine.  If not fine too.  What makes this country what it is, freedom to express your opinion.  Least for now.

Your mileage may vary.  I know what m y mileage is.


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 19, 2020)

brenndatomu said:


> These power grid issue are going to turn into a real chit show IMO...the greenies keep pushing everything to electric and we barely have the grid to run what's here now...and its aging...and we keep shutting down more and more base load plants...yup, I see a storm a brewing.
> 
> Yup, anything with a motor...motors are still responsible for the better part of the grid load...when someone figures out how to do with motors what has been done with lighting...then we will have something!



Electric motors are very efficient, you'd be hard pressed to find an electric motor that operates under 80% efficiency. Incandescent lighting is closer to 5% efficient at turning electricity into light. I'd frankly be quite surprised if most LED bulbs can beat 80%, most manufacturers are over-volting the LEDs to produce more light with less hardware saving on manufacturing costs. The downside is they become less efficient and produce heat as a by-product, every LED in my house is warm to the touch when on meaning they all waste some energy.


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 19, 2020)

There's also other factors at play in California. California seems to have issues building new natural gas peaker plants, and as such has to import a lot of electricity to make up the difference when renewable generation wanes. Some of this electricity comes from British Columbia here in Canada. The problem with that is there's becoming less extra to buy, BC's population and consumption continue to grow and as such are using more of their excess electricity every year. BC generates the lion's share of their electricity from hydro-power, the last hydro-electric dam to be built in BC was built in 1984, with the exception of Site C which should be completed in 2024. Site C was first proposed in 1981 and it took until 2015 for approval to be granted and construction to begin. Meaning new demand is far outpacing new supply there.

It's pretty easy to see California is at the point where changes are needed. Either more renewable energy with storage needs to be built, or they need to back peddle on their carbon emission goals and build natural gas peaker plants, or revisit the idea of nuclear power.

I really like some of the technology that has California come up with, Rule 21 solar inverters are one of those things. It's pretty cool that a homeowners solar system can be used to help maintain grid stability. But there are also a lot of example of what not to do, and what doesn't work.

As said above though time of use billing would help this, if energy users paid more for energy at peak times there would be incentive to reduce demand. If the same was applied to generation there would also be incentives for producers/homeowners to generate/sell more renewable energy at these times, particularly if they owned a grid-dispatchable battery.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 19, 2020)

Will all be screwed when China says no more LED's.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 19, 2020)

I'd like someone to tell me what becomes of the solar panels in 20 years when they are no longer producing useable power?


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 20, 2020)

Why is it people only care about the end of life disposal of renewable energy infrastructure?

Did we somehow solve the problem of the millions of tons of other waste we produce and I missed it?

FYI almost every solar panel is warrantied to 25 years, mine are guaranteed to produce 80% of the energy they do today in 25 years, and probably could produce for another 25 years after that.

But what does this have to do with the grid stability in California?


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 20, 2020)

Here is fairly good article on how much battery capacity is needed for green grid in CA 









						California Doomed to Frequent Blackout Risk by Battery Shortage
					

(Bloomberg) -- As the threat of blackouts continues to plague California, officials are pointing to battery storage as a key to preventing future power shortfalls. But the Golden State is going to need a lot more batteries to weather the next climate-driven crisis—let alone to achieve its goal...




					www.yahoo.com
				




BTW, About 20 years ago I had read that many CA homes had minimal or no insulation. Western electric power rates were cheap compared to the east coast  and insulation added cost and time to new homes so it wasnt a priority.  I believe that CA now has fairly aggressive energy standards for a new home but there is no doubt a large block of older housing that probably are saddled with high power demand.  When temps get as high as they did in CA in the last week AC is really not optional. Swamp coolers can help but they need water to run and much of CA is chronically short of water.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Aug 20, 2020)

ABMax24 said:


> It's pretty easy to see California is at the point where changes are needed. Either more renewable energy with storage needs to be built, or they need to back peddle on their carbon emission goals and build natural gas peaker plants, or revisit the idea of nuclear power.



Wow, you just described NYS's future. 
Our governor touts himself as "Super Green" and has promoted mega offshore wind farms as our energy future. 
But shoots himself in the foot by promoting the early "forced" retirements of the two Indian Point nuclear units (zero emission and 1000 Mw each), then is forced to "fast track" two giant Natural Gas combined cycle plants (750 and 1000 Mw) in down state area. I think one of his staff even was indicted on some permitting shenanigans.
Loose 2000 Mw of clean energy production, replace with 1750 Mw of of fossil pollution in the same location. Brilliant!


----------



## begreen (Aug 20, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> I'd like someone to tell me what becomes of the solar panels in 20 years when they are no longer producing useable power?


That's a false assumption. At 20 yrs the panels may not be producing nameplate output, but they can still be putting out substantial power. See Peakbagger's separate post on this topic.





						20 year life on Solar Panels fallacy
					

Rather than derailing another thread I thought it was worth starting a thread on common fallacy with respect the life of solar panels. This gets lot of attention in the media and every few years there are solar panel crisis articles designed to pull in eyeballs on the web. The reality is that...




					www.hearth.com


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 20, 2020)

From what I see, your governor is an idiot and a corrupt one at that.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 20, 2020)

begreen said:


> That's a false assumption. At 20 yrs the panels may not be producing nameplate output, but they can still be putting out substantial power. See Peakbagger's separate post on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Could be.  Solar will never be in my equation for energy anyway.  Like I said, could be but then I don't make book on a person's opinion of something.  We all have opinions.  I prefer sound assumptions based on proven facts.

I do know that here, the current push is for mega solar 'farms'.  They aren't farms at all but industrial installations.  Farms grow food and raise domesticated meat for human consumption.  All solar 'farms' do is take valuable farmland out of production and line the landowners pockets with land rent payments.  Me, I'd rather have food on my plate versus alternative energy.

I'm 100% against taking farmland out of production to foist alternative energy schemes.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 20, 2020)

Additionally, from what I observe, people in California brought most of their grief on themselves.


----------



## brenndatomu (Aug 20, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> I do know that here, the current push is for mega solar 'farms'. They aren't farms at all but industrial installations. Farms grow food and raise domesticated meat for human consumption. All solar 'farms' do is take valuable farmland out of production and line the landowners pockets with land rent payments. Me, I'd rather have food on my plate versus alternative energy.


My employer had a 15 acre solar farm installed a couple years ago (formerly a producing hay field)...now they have to pay to have the panels mowed around...that's expensive, so I suggested letting a local sheep farmer graze his sheep in there over the summer (the whole farm is enclosed by chainlink fence) That was shot down (dunno why) so they are still paying some landscaper to brush hog/weedeat the whole place several times per year.


----------



## begreen (Aug 20, 2020)

Funny coincidence. Last night I watched a movie that had a section on Agrivoltaics. Farming under solar panels. They showed a large operation on Reunion Island. Plants do well with a bit of shade in hot climates.








						Exclusive. Solar Plants Combined With Agriculture On Reunion Island
					

NO WEB/NO APPS - Exclusive. Solar power plants Bardzour and Les Cedres pictured in October 2017 on Reunion Island. French company Akuo Energy is specialized in the worldwide production of sustainable energy such as solar, wind, biomass and hydraulic. On Reunion Island, Akuo has developed two...




					energycentral.com
				




There are several examples of agrivoltaics at work. Here are a few.








						Solar Panels Pair Surprisingly Well With Tomatoes, Peppers and Pollinators
					

In 'agrivoltaics,' crops and solar panels not only share land and sunlight, but also help each other function more efficiently.




					www.treehugger.com
				











						Farming under solar panels saves water and creates energy
					

Growing crops under the shade of solar panels, also called agrivoltaics, could boost food production, use less water, and make solar panels more efficient.




					www.futurity.org
				











						Energy and food together: Under solar panels, crops thrive
					

Beneath some solar arrays, pollinator-friendly plants, fruits, vegetables and forage are cropping up in place of turfgrass or gravel.




					www.pri.org


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 20, 2020)

Is there any profitable farm land being converted into solar farms? If anything only more crop land and livestock pasture is being created.

I would also like to see the "proven facts" that solar is a net increase in carbon.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 20, 2020)

begreen said:


> Funny coincidence. Last night I watched a movie that had a section on Agrivoltaics. Farming under solar panels. They showed a large operation on Reunion Island. Plants do well with a bit of shade in hot climates.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might work with a truck farm, won't work with row cropping.  No ag tractor will fit in there and if they do, I'd like to see it.  Corn, wheat and soybeans are staples for our economy.  Not peppers and tomatoes.  The only thing that sort of farming does is increase migrant labor in this country, nothing more.

Being a farmer and landowner, I'm totally against conversion of good farm ground to solar.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 20, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> Is there any profitable farm land being converted into solar farms? If anything only more crop land and livestock pasture is being created.
> 
> I would also like to see the "proven facts" that solar is a net increase in carbon.


Trying here (Deerfield, Michigan) but meeting stiff opposition, me included.  Some of the best farmland in south east Michigan is right here and at least on my ground it's not gonna happen.  Sure, 800 bucks a year per acre is enticing but loosing productive farmland to solar just isn't worth it for me.  Besides, some of the field corn I grow goes into my corn burned and heats my home in the winter..... 

The township is looking at the tax generated to support it but I know what will transpire most likely.  The solar company will apply for a tax abatement and most likely get it and then the township gets zip.  Either that or the solar company will divest itself from the project and then the court will decide what an equitable rent amount is.  The court will ask what the going rate per acre rent is (it's between 200 and 250 an acre presently and the court will set it at that rate and the landholder looses.

Finally, the proposed solar 'farm' here, the solar company has specifically stated that the landholders must pay for the decomissioning of the arrays on their land.  Always keep in mind that decommissioned solar panels are HAZARDOUS WASTE and must be disposed of  in an approved landfill so, it's not just the take them to any old landfill, you pay dearly to dispose of them and then there is all the substructure as well.

At my age, it really don't matter as I won't be here to deal with it but, I consider myself a steward of the land as as such, I will not defile that with solar panels.

Then there is the manufacture of the panels and what goes into them and the pollution that causes.  I guess people think that solar panels are made by the tooth fairy..  Sort of like the electric car batteries.  They contain LITHIUM and last time I checked, lithium was a hazardous substance.  Same deal with panels, they contain hazardous substances and those substances don't come from here, they come from there and over there, they don't give a hoot about pollution or human condition, only profit.

I might be 70 but I don't have my head in the sand.

Don't give a hoot about net carbon, never have and don't care.  I hate Tier 4 mandates on diesel engines., in fact so much that none of my tractors are Tier 4 and I won't buy one or at least until the controls are actually perfected to where the consumer (me) isn't playing surrogate to the builders, testing their emissions systems.  There are 5 diesel powered units on this farm and none are emissions compliant and never will be.  What I find interesting is, the value of those machines is steadily climbing because people are wising up and avoiding Tier 4 diesels if possible.

Of course if you live in suburbia or in an urban environment all that concerns you is that you have heat or light and that is all well and good but, keep in mind that in the end you'll pay for that in greater and greater amounts as the progression to solar and alternative fuels increase and food become less and less available.

Me, not worried about it.  I won't be here to reap the rewards of stupidity.


----------



## ben94122 (Aug 20, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> Farms grow food and raise domesticated meat for human consumption.  All solar 'farms' do is take valuable farmland out of production and line the landowners pockets with land rent payments.  Me, I'd rather have food on my plate versus alternative energy.



I don't understand this logic when 40% of US corn is used to make ethanol:


			Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Corn Production and Portion Used for Fuel Ethanol


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 20, 2020)

ben94122 said:


> I don't understand this logic when 40% of US corn is used to make ethanol:
> 
> 
> Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Corn Production and Portion Used for Fuel Ethanol


Not here and I don't grow ANY e-corn and never have.  E-corn is a special variety GMO modified just for ethanol production.  Maybe in your state but not here.  Of course I don't know squat about California and really don't want to.  From what I see on the news your state is either burning up or sliding down a mountain in a mudslide.


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 20, 2020)

ben94122 said:


> I don't understand this logic when 40% of US corn is used to make ethanol:
> 
> 
> Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - U.S. Corn Production and Portion Used for Fuel Ethanol



That and most farmland is actually lost to urban sprawl, suburbs, acreages, cottages, weekend getaways, industrial development. Solar farms are a very small player.


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 21, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> Might work with a truck farm, won't work with row cropping.  No ag tractor will fit in there and if they do, I'd like to see it.  Corn, wheat and soybeans are staples for our economy.  Not peppers and tomatoes.  The only thing that sort of farming does is increase migrant labor in this country, nothing more.
> 
> Being a farmer and landowner, I'm totally against conversion of good farm ground to solar.


Why is it the fault of the migrants? Maybe farmers should hire domestically born labor. 



SidecarFlip said:


> Trying here (Deerfield, Michigan) but meeting stiff opposition, me included.  Some of the best farmland in south east Michigan is right here and at least on my ground it's not gonna happen.  Sure, 800 bucks a year per acre is enticing but loosing productive farmland to solar just isn't worth it for me.  Besides, some of the field corn I grow goes into my corn burned and heats my home in the winter.....
> 
> The township is looking at the tax generated to support it but I know what will transpire most likely.  The solar company will apply for a tax abatement and most likely get it and then the township gets zip.  Either that or the solar company will divest itself from the project and then the court will decide what an equitable rent amount is.  The court will ask what the going rate per acre rent is (it's between 200 and 250 an acre presently and the court will set it at that rate and the landholder looses.
> 
> ...



Most of this is just your opinion, zero "proven facts" about solar production. You know all that oil, grease, and fuel you put into your tractors? Those are all hazardous substances as well. The particulates that come off the tires, the flecks of paint that come off, and the exhaust are also hazardous substances. Your head is in the sand about Tier 4 and other diesel products. There are thousands of them running across the globe and a few folks are having issues, just like with older tractors. Your head is so deep in the sand you are listening to Chinese propaganda about carbon and pollution.  Your farm must not be very big, because all the largest farms are running the most modern diesel equipment. The value of used equipment is going up because of fools like you inflating the value.


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 21, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> Not here and I don't grow ANY e-corn and never have.  E-corn is a special variety GMO modified just for ethanol production.  Maybe in your state but not here.  Of course I don't know squat about California and really don't want to.  From what I see on the news your state is either burning up or sliding down a mountain in a mudslide.



Keep your head in the sand about CA as well.

"Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California. California is the leading US state for cash farm receipts, accounting for over 13 percent of the nation's total agricultural value."





						CDFA - Statistics
					






					www.cdfa.ca.gov
				



.


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 21, 2020)

ABMax24 said:


> That and most farmland is actually lost to urban sprawl, suburbs, acreages, cottages, weekend getaways, industrial development. Solar farms are a very small player.


Thank you.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 21, 2020)

Basically done commenting other than to say your ignorance is bliss...  for you.  Think maybe you should go and become a picker and experience it alongside the migrant workers..  Have a nice day...  I plan on it.


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 21, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> Basically done commenting other than to say your ignorance is bliss...  for you.  Think maybe you should go and become a picker and experience it alongside the migrant workers..  Have a nice day...  I plan on it.


This is about as openly racist as you can be on this forum. The only one ignorant on this thread is you, so perhaps pay attention.


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 21, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> This is about as openly racist as you can be on this forum. The only one ignorant on this thread is you, so perhaps pay attention.


If you feel a post or poster is inappropriate click on the report button in the lower left hand of the post. Alternatively you have the option of ignoring the poster.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 21, 2020)

My final comment...  If you think (I use that term loosely) that any domestically raised American citizen would work picking vegetables in a hot field like Mexican migrant workers do (here) every planting and harvest. you are living in a dream world.  No young American would do it and if they did, they'd last maybe an hour and be done.  Kids today don't want to do manual labor and if on the outside chance they would, they would demand top wages and a break every 15 minutes. if they would.  They much prefer playing video games, yacking on cell phones and doing nothing.  Why we use imported workers. if we didn't hand picked crops would never get harvested.

Why I quit running small squares (hay) years ago and went to rounds and large squares.  Thewability to hire flat rack loaders in non-existent, no matter how much you pay them.. Might last half a wagon and are finished.  Don't have the impetus to do it so I'm 100% mechanized now.  Have a pristine New Holland 575 square baler in the barn that hasn't been used in 5 years.

Far as my position on solar (or wind turbines) and land use, nothing changes with me.  I'm 100 % against solar on fertile,  productive farm land that is better suited for growing crops.  Put the solar and wind on arid ground or on your roof.  Not fertile ground.

You people need to quit drinking the Kool aid and come to terms with reality.


----------



## ben94122 (Aug 21, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> I don't know squat about California...



California, like everyplace else, is beautiful. We're even in the National Anthem: "We're from North California and South Alabam, and little towns all around this land."

There is always something to complain about, but my kids have plenty to eat and have never known war. We live in the middle of a 6 million acre forest. What more could I want?


----------



## begreen (Aug 21, 2020)

ben94122 said:


> California, like everyplace else, is beautiful. We're even in the National Anthem: "We're from North California and South Alabam, and little towns all across this land."
> 
> There is always something to complain about, but my kids have plenty to eat and have never known war. We live in the middle of a 6 million acre forest. What more could I want?


Rain?


----------



## ben94122 (Aug 21, 2020)

begreen said:


> Rain?



Says the guy  from the land where intermittent windshield wipers were invented...we get rain in the winter, where it belongs!

This was the view from the road by my house last night.  The lumber mill is the lights in the foreground, and the red is forest fire. About 3 miles away.


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 23, 2020)

This article has pretty good blow by blow on what happened.









						The Day California Went Dark Was a Crisis Years in the Making
					

(Bloomberg) -- Signs of a problem within California’s power system emerged a full day before the blackouts hit.Trader Dov Quint sat in his basement outside Boulder, Colorado, scouring the state’s day-ahead power market for opportunities to profit from California’s heat wave. He saw something...




					www.yahoo.com
				




Tripping a combined cycle plant definitely didnt help. I expect a lot of folks will be showing up at the plant demanding operating records on the trip. Just think the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant a major power 2.2 GW is going down starting in 2024.  If they shut down Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility even if they have peakers they will not be able to run them due to lack of natural gas so I guess they will need oil backup.


----------



## brenndatomu (Aug 23, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Just think the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant a major power 2.2 GW is going down starting in 2024. If they shut down Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility even if they have peakers they will not be able to run them due to lack of natural gas so I guess they will need oil backup.


Just what I have said for years...this stuff is just political games and not thought through well at all (reactive) its all fine and well if flyover country has brown and blackouts...but when Mr Senator (or office of your choosing) comes home and the Mrs doesn't have power at the house...uh oh, maybe we quit burning recycled dinos a bit too soon.
Locally, we are dealing with a base load plant that was forced into service as a peaking plant due to an agreement with the previous administration to allow two smaller boilers to run coal if one large one was converted to gas...not working out well...as soon as a new tie line is completed, it will be mothballs for another coal plant...and the end of any local control...well, that's already begun...


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 23, 2020)

I can see a huge rollout of backup batteries (tesla powerwall and the like) coming to Californian homes in the next year. Those with enough money will start to protect themselves from these rolling blackouts.

Another option is to provide rebates and incentives to upgrade both home insulation and AC units to increase efficiency.

There will be a lot of money to be made if someone can develop and construct gigawatt scale energy storage in California, I'm sure a lot of businesses will now be taking notice of this after these blackouts.

The one thing I'm concerned about is natural gas supply. With all these new peaker plants the gas has to come from sowewhere. The western Canadian sedimentary basin has a lot of gas yet to be produced, but the vast majority of it now must be fracked to be extracted, so any kind of moratorium or restrictions on fracking will drive prices up considerably. There is also an LNG terminal being built on the west coast that will compete for supply. Also in Canada we will phase out all coal power by 2030, in Alberta alone we have 5GW of coal generation that will be replaced by gas, further driving up demand. Making less gas available to ship south of the border to California, and almost certainly excluding the possibility of any new pipelines being built that way to increase supply to California's peaker plants.

It would have been really nice if these events had opened the eyes of the public to what they can do in their own lives to reduce consumption and their use of peak time electricity. But as usual all the blame is being put on CAISO as to why there wasn't enough electricity to meet almost record setting demand.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 23, 2020)

Electric cars,  electric trucks, cordless electric tools, all take guess what....Gotta love it.  Being green is being dark.  Build those solar farms and wind mills.  All good with me, just not on my ground, on yours.....  duh.


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 23, 2020)

If you go back to my OP, I used the guinea pig comparison. If the world consensus is that they want to avoid future drastic climate changes that have already had impacts worldwide, de-carbonization its not optional then the status quo has to change and its going to require trial and error.  California politicians were not listening to technical folks who run their grid and the politicians got thumped upside the head when they ignored the technical folks. They will thrown a public tantrum but ultimately there will be changes legislated to reduce the impact of the next event. My guess is batteries will factor in heavily. CA is not the only dicey power market in the US , Ercot in Texas has had ongoing summer issues integrating wind,  ISO New England has been predicting power shortages during winter conditions. due to the loss of a couple baseload nukes and an artificial  shortage of natural gas in the region. Mass is betting the Canadians will figure a way of running a extension cord to save them and maybe once the administration changes do the right thing and switch to big offshore wind. 

Its not going to be free or easy but changes will occur once it gets painful.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 23, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Its not going to be free or easy but changes will occur once it gets painful.


Isn't that how it always works?


----------



## CaptSpiff (Aug 23, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> This article has pretty good blow by blow on what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The most telling line in that article:
"The state, guided by one of the most ambitious climate policies in the U.S., had retired 9 gigawatts of gas capacity -- enough to power 6.8 million homes -- over the past five years."

Sometimes zealots for a cause need to suffer some pain. Problem is most are so blind that they'll call for doubling down. 
Sad that they take us with them.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Aug 23, 2020)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say nothing is going to change.  Those who are in power have backup generators and don't care.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 23, 2020)

Exactly......................


----------



## begreen (Aug 23, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> My final comment...


Let's keep politics out of the discussion. There is lots of abuse on all sides of the equation.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 23, 2020)

Subject matter changed....lol


----------



## Highbeam (Aug 25, 2020)

Super easy solution. Get a silly cheap backup generator and a propane tank to feed it for these once a year occurrences. Much to do about nothing.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Aug 25, 2020)

Don't know about the cheap part.  We have a turbo diesel 30 KW backup genny that feeds off the 1000 gallon diesel bulk tahn here on the farm.  Provides complete power (1 and 3 phase) for the entire farm 45 seconds after we loose utility power which isn't often.  I keep the tank at least 3/4 full all the time.  Enough to power the unit for 2 weeks non stop running.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Aug 26, 2020)

Great thread, and yes, this does seem to be a trend or perhaps an omen of the future for many other states in the US. We're in the midst of exiting the oil age and bumps are now starting to show. 
Most energy delivery companies are focused on sub-transmission upgrades, mainly changing the old school 34.5kv construction to 69kv, this is to create a web were substantial load from regions can be shifted onto one another, or create a looped scheme system rather then the traditional radial feed for better system reliability. 
One of the other major tie ups that many don't realize when discussing peaker plants, large solar fields, battery storage ect... is that one area might have issue with overlapping and serving another area due to simple phase rotation issues between substations, I see this pretty frequently when discussing distribution load shifts, circuit ties, new loop tie schemes. 
I think one of the most important thing to rationalize is that the US is entering a new age within electric delivery, we're at the very start of trying to scientifically work through the existing politics / laws all while upgrading our grids to include sustainable load sharing capacity to minimize the need to reduce energy. Me personally, all the other noise in the room, is noise in the room for now, we have got to make a reliable foundation first, before we can build out and bring in the newest of the new tech on board.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 26, 2020)

Yawn. Seems like a lot of sour grapes being milked around this.

I haven't read too closely but is seems that what is happening is called a very strong heat wave, like a once in a decade heat wave.

New England had a once in a decade cold spell a few years back, and its fossil powered energy infrastructure struggled, utilities called for conservation, prices went haywire, profiteering, etc.

How is this different?

In the end, if you want spare capacity in a system, be it peakers in CA, or nat gas storage (or more pipelines) in New England, someone has to pay for that.  Or rather than pay for it, they can endure a short shortage every ten years or so.


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 27, 2020)

I think the bigger issue is do the utilities spend the money on proven fossil infrastructure to back up the grid in high use periods or do they go with emerging non fossil backup along with load reduction. The cheapest KW is the one they dont need to generate during a peak load event.  I have been a long term an advocate of real time pricing which is proven to help encourage load shifting. That is a cheap way to cut peaks and spread them out.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 27, 2020)

Yeah, a natgas peaker plant and a grid battery do not work the same.  The former is good at providing relatively cost effective backup power over a more extended multi-day period (assuming nat gas is available), while the battery is (currently) cost effective only for providing a lot of power over a much shorter period for grid stabilization, like minutes to hours.

The vision that I always had of grid batteries providing diurnal (or few day) storage for PV power in a 100% renewable grid...nope, that's not what they're being used for now.  Its the energy storage capacity that is expensive, storing a an hour of power is much more affordable.  So I think they are used only in a limited way for duck curve management to flatten the ramps and the peaks.

But since even CAISO is still only getting a fraction of its total daily energy from wind and solar, the rolling blackouts are not due to the intermittency of Renewables, or there not being 'enough batteries'.  Its about not enough baseload or regional grid capacity to meet a **one week per decade** event.  IOW, a LOT like the polar vortex problem in New England.


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 27, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> I think the bigger issue is do the utilities spend the money on proven fossil infrastructure to back up the grid in high use periods or do they go with emerging non fossil backup along with load reduction. The cheapest KW is the one they dont need to generate during a peak load event.  I have been a long term an advocate of real time pricing which is proven to help encourage load shifting. That is a cheap way to cut peaks and spread them out.



My understanding was that California did sell electricity on the spot market like we do here in Alberta, but maybe I'm wrong.

Alberta runs on a live real-time price market, sometime the prices are 0 or very close to it when renewables are producing at periods of low demand. Other times prices max out at $999/mwh when there is a limited supply of electricity during high demand. During these events it creates incentives for other generating units to power on, as well as high demand users to sell their cheaper contract power back to the market for a profit. For the most part this stabilizes the grid.

For Alberta it works great, but most of our electricity consumption is by industry and they both monitor and react to price changes for financial benefit within their business. In my experience though homeowners have trouble deciphering energy vs transmission charges on their bills, let alone trying to monitor energy rates. As such our residential energy rates are roughly based the average monthly energy prices.

California would require a different approach. I think smart home/grid technology is required to monitor and adjust consumption based on prices without homeowner input. At least for appliances like; AC, washer, dryer, dishwasher, and car chargers.

You can actually see Alberta's current energy stats here: http://ets.aeso.ca/

Using the drop down tabs on the side you can go to current supply and demand and see every generating unit in the province.


----------



## peakbagger (Aug 27, 2020)

California and many utilities do real time pricing at an industrial and commercial level but only a few utilities do real time consumer pricing. The "duck curve" phenomenon is driven by consumer demand so the way to flatten it out is push real time pricing down to the consumer.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 8, 2020)

Keep the g** d*** nukes running and for the goodness of the environment, build more!  Especially with Electrify Everything.

I can't wait until our society has dependable, reliable and consistently buildable nuclear power plants with a closed fuel cycle (likely fast-spectrum uranium or thermal-spectrum thorium+uranium) producing short-lived waste.  These kinds of issues will look like the Dark Ages in an advanced "nuclear" powered society.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 8, 2020)

At this point in the US there is no private company that could afford build a nuclear power plant. No insurance company would bond it. Plant Vogtle in Georgia is probably the last large nuke to be built in the US for a long time. https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200903/georgia-power-plant-vogtle-expansion-still-on-schedule.

Several projects have gone bust in the past few years and several companies associated with those projects are went bust also.  Note the cost has doubled.  The US long ago lost the ability to make several of the major components. last thing I knew, China and Russia were the only sources of the large forgings needed.

There are a couple of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) designs that are winding their way through the regulatory process. If and when one gets built is anyone's guess.  They inevitably are smaller production line based designs that are designed to be gravity cooled in event of a loss of plant power. If the plug is pulled they just keep circulating by convection until the fuel if burned out. No matter what NIMBY still applies.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 8, 2020)

Yes I know this.  We're in the dark ages with low-carbon energy as I see it.  Solar and wind are great but not-so-mysteriously disappears without control, the esteemed batteries may come but the price is sky high today.  My guess is we will make incremental progress until we can reliably build nukes again.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 8, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> Yeah, a natgas peaker plant and a grid battery do not work the same.  The former is good at providing relatively cost effective backup power over a more extended multi-day period (assuming nat gas is available), while the battery is (currently) cost effective only for providing a lot of power over a much shorter period for grid stabilization, like minutes to hours.
> 
> The vision that I always had of grid batteries providing diurnal (or few day) storage for PV power in a 100% renewable grid...nope, that's not what they're being used for now.  Its the energy storage capacity that is expensive, storing a an hour of power is much more affordable.  So I think they are used only in a limited way for duck curve management to flatten the ramps and the peaks.
> 
> But since even CAISO is still only getting a fraction of its total daily energy from wind and solar, the rolling blackouts are not due to the intermittency of Renewables, or there not being 'enough batteries'.  Its about not enough baseload or regional grid capacity to meet a **one week per decade** event.  IOW, a LOT like the polar vortex problem in New England.


I don't know, those polar vortex events happened a few years in a row.  Oregon and WA are seeing abundant forest fires now.  Could be once a decade but I suspect that will shock folks when it happens again next year or the year after.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 8, 2020)

PS- Anyone else look at those forest fires and think "Man I wish I'd had a chance to fell & buck some of that for myself before Mother Nature took it back?"


----------



## begreen (Sep 9, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> At this point in the US there is no private company that could afford build a nuclear power plant. No insurance company would bond it. Plant Vogtle in Georgia is probably the last large nuke to be built in the US for a long time. https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200903/georgia-power-plant-vogtle-expansion-still-on-schedule.
> 
> Several projects have gone bust in the past few years and several companies associated with those projects are went bust also.  Note the cost has doubled.  The US long ago lost the ability to make several of the major components. last thing I knew, China and Russia were the only sources of the large forgings needed.
> 
> There are a couple of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) designs that are winding their way through the regulatory process. If and when one gets built is anyone's guess.  They inevitably are smaller production line based designs that are designed to be gravity cooled in event of a loss of plant power. If the plug is pulled they just keep circulating by convection until the fuel if burned out. No matter what NIMBY still applies.


So, assuming a sea change in the next few years as the need to get more nuclear online for baseload replacement of fossil fuel power, what has the most reasonable chance at success.? Yang proposed a rapid development of TSMR, but even that had an operational horizon that was quite far out. 2050?


----------



## begreen (Sep 9, 2020)

spirilis said:


> I don't know, those polar vortex events happened a few years in a row.  Oregon and WA are seeing abundant forest fires now.  Could be once a decade but I suspect that will shock folks when it happens again next year or the year after.


California too. 
I think we are going to need better solutions quicker. The fastest still seems to be conservation and improved efficiencies.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Sep 9, 2020)

begreen said:


> California too.
> I think we are going to need better solutions quicker. The fastest still seems to be conservation and improved efficiencies.


Its such a balancing act, I'm a proponent of business and commerce, but I think that all generation at this point needs to be regulated, deregulation has opened up Pandora's box so to speak with to much competition, that competition is what gave rise to the fossil market, mainly natural gas peakers, it also drove the actual cost per kw down, far below the minimum of what a nuclear plant can produce, many companies were and are looking for subsidies to keep nuclear online, basically it costs them money to produce electric, but at the same time, there forced to keep things running due to licensing issues, and the amount of cash they have tied up in infrastructure . 
Also by shutting down nuclear, we essentially stopped advancing the tech aspect of it, there are theories and computer programs in place to mimic plant operation, but since we haven't advanced since the 70's layout, we are essentially behind the 8 ball, just lots to consider here.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 9, 2020)

begreen said:


> So, assuming a sea change in the next few years as the need to get more nuclear online for baseload replacement of fossil fuel power, what has the most reasonable chance at success.? Yang proposed a rapid development of TSMR, but even that had an operational horizon that was quite far out. 2050?


B&W has been building effectively SMRs for the US nuclear program for 50 years plus. The government has a few billion in the budget to fund some trial designs in this decade. I think the optimistic schedules I have seen is 5 to 10 years for deployment. Rosatom in Russia is producing  barge based small reactors and are accepting orders. I do not know if they are natural circulation design boilers. There are several other foreign designs but doubt they can get through US licensing hurdles quickly. Bill Gates is also invested in a somewhat mature SMR design.


----------



## begreen (Sep 9, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> B&W has been building effectively SMRs for the US nuclear program for 50 years plus. The government has a few billion in the budget to fund some trial designs in this decade. I think the optimistic schedules I have seen is 5 to 10 years for deployment. Rosatom in Russia is producing  barge based small reactors and are accepting orders. I do not know if they are natural circulation design boilers. There are several other foreign designs but doubt they can get through US licensing hurdles quickly. Bill Gates is also invested in a somewhat mature SMR design.


Are most of these still plutonium-uranium reactors?


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 9, 2020)

begreen said:


> Are most of these still plutonium-uranium reactors?


My understanding is yes they are conventional fuel blends. Meaning lots of nasty waste. Lots of claims out there about various reactor technologies that use different fuel mixes that result in higher efficiency and lower toxicity of the resultant waste but above my limited understanding on how much is hype and reality.  The thorium fuel cycles that India was working on were intriguing.


----------



## begreen (Sep 9, 2020)

We have to do better and smarter this time around. Efficiency may be one thing, but there are many other costs involved in the lifetime of a nuke power plant that need to be accounted for. I haven't heard of the thorium fuel cycles in India. Off to Google land to find out more.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 9, 2020)

I think folks' fears about the nuclear waste are vastly overblown and preventing them from taking a critical look at its value.  The tech used right now, dry casks after cooling in a spent fuel pool for several years, appears to be a pretty stable technology.  The high density of the fuel also means high density, i.e. compactness, of the waste.  What entices me most about this stuff is that some 95% of its fuel value is still intact - when it becomes cost-effective to pull the stuff out of the casks and reprocess it (most of the fuel value would require fast-neutron spectrum turning the U238 into Pu, but there are designs intended to do this while keeping things on-site).  As this will probably be decades away, the nasties radionuclides will have already decayed away and what remains has longer half-lives (and comparatively less danger/risk).

Most of what we use today employs straight uranium, enriched to 5%, some Pu is produced in the midst of the fuel cycle but most of it is fissioned away (some 1/3rd of the heat produced in the life of a fuel rod comes from the Pu produced by stray fast-neutrons hitting the U238).

The big problem here is speed.  Renewables are going to have to cut it for now 'cause it's all we can build fast.  I don't have high hopes that it's going to get us as far as the proponents hope.  We'll fail to decarbonize fully by 2035 or 2040 or whatever the targets are.

The lowest hanging fruit IMO, is keeping existing nukes online.  I keep hearing pro-renewables folks on twitter complain that new renewables are cheaper than existing nukes, but I've yet to hear them actually claim to deploy that much renewable energy fast enough to trade off when the nukes go offline.  Nukes going offline results mostly in natural gas being burned more.  It's a hideous scam for the environment.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 9, 2020)

It's like everything else in the decarbonization story - Need breakthrough technology and needed it yesterday.
Second best, though, is building nuclear that we know how to do - and do it on wide scale with identical designs done repeatedly to improve upon construction costs/practices.  USA never did this with civilian power generation, most of our nukes are bespoke designs altered in one way or another.  France and S. Korea pulled this off though in the past few decades.

One of my concerns is the Vogtle AP1000's will probably be the first and LAST ones to get built in the USA.  All that manpower & construction experience gained during the saga will be... a one-shot deal.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 9, 2020)

begreen said:


> We have to do better and smarter this time around. Efficiency may be one thing, but there are many other costs involved in the lifetime of a nuke power plant that need to be accounted for. I haven't heard of the thorium fuel cycles in India. Off to Google land to find out more.


FYI- Thorium is basically a breedable fuel that produces U-233, a thermal-spectrum (slow neutron) fissionable fuel (similar to U-235 and Pu-239).  It's good stuff, the critical mass is a little smaller than U-235 and a little bigger than Pu-239.  What's special about thorium though, is it can be "bred" at thermal spectrum, i.e. slow neutrons slowed down by a moderator.  That's interesting since most conventional reactors use thermal-spectrum with moderation (water or graphite).

By contrast Uranium breeders depend on neutrons moving around much faster, no moderator inside the reactor, and usually require several orders of magnitude higher neutron density/flux to attain "critical" operation, but the fast neutrons slam U-238's and the resulting U-239 transmutes into Pu-239 which then fissions at fast or slow (thermal) spectrum.
I'm talking about specialized reactors, like what Bill Gates' TerraPower original Traveling Wave Reactor (never found to work well IIRC), and of course the DOE's Integral Fast Reactor (which DID work well) accomplished.  Those run at high neutron speed all the time typically using a liquid metal coolant that won't slow down neutrons flying through them.  They depend on producing gobloads of Pu-239 and fissioning it, but do require occasional shutdown to reprocess the fuel and get rid of the fission products - which hamper the nuclear chain reaction by acting as neutron poisons (sponges; isotopes that can capture several neutrons without decaying or re-emitting neutrons, acting like the control rods).

Thorium is a neat idea and we've played with it before- the last nuclear fuel load of the Shippingport reactor, the USA's first civilian nuclear power generator, incorporated some thorium fuel rods so they could characterize how well it "breeds" (it does so adequately).

The big thing with Thorium is some folks - Kirk Sorensen was one of the recent pioneers talking this up - are talking about taking a design tested at Oak Ridge Natl. Labs decades back, the Molten Salt reactor, and designing it around a U-233 fissile fuel seed, Thorium "blanket" reactor design, probably with graphite tubes throughout the reactor to act as the moderator.  As there's no water involved, the use of graphite shouldn't risk causing a "Chernobyl" style failure mode.  Much safer design, basically.  IIRC there are still materials issues yet to be resolved with them for the metallic alloys compatible with the hot salt and neutron embrittlement.

The India connection has to do with the fact that they have a lot of Th deposits - from black sand beaches.  Good link: https://atomicinsights.com/lftr-in-...-better-than-a-silver-bullet-energy-solution/

One point I keep hearing the Thorium "guys" ramble on about is how safe it is from producing nuclear weapons.  I call BS on this because the USA tested U-233 nuclear bombs before.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 9, 2020)

Spirilis, you're on fire!  LOL.

I agree with you about keeping existing nukes spinning, even doing major overhauls if we need to extend their lives.  And that dry casks are FINE for storage of any amount of foreseeable waste.

But I remain a skeptic about breeding and thorium.  It has not been demonstrated at a decent scale and price point.  It is easy to draw up paper designs, hard to solve the materials and chemical separation problems.  If we needed to at any cost? Sure.  But there is a current cost to renewables + lithium storage.  And I think breeder reactors are well above that.

My idea for cheap nuclear power is fusion, BTW.  It turns out that thermonuclear bomb yields can be scaled up much faster than costs.  That is, a 1000 MTon bomb costs like 20X as much as a 1 MTon bomb, but it does weigh 100x more.  These gigaton devices are massive, and basically a linear assembly of fusible fuel with a 'little' nuclear bomb igniter on one end.  So my plan is build one of these, put it in a deep borehole in dry rock in a low population area, and set it off.  All the energy goes into heat in the rock, and will remain there for thousands of years.  Most of the radioactive reaction products (from the fusion) have short lives.  Then drill other boreholes and extract the heat like its  high temp (i.e. high quality) geothermal.  Done.  Fusion power.  The bigger you make the device, the cheaper the power gets.

Have a nice day.


----------



## spirilis (Sep 9, 2020)

I've been spending too much time the past few years reading about nuclear I think :-D


----------



## spirilis (Sep 9, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> Spirilis, you're on fire!  LOL.
> 
> I agree with you about keeping existing nukes spinning, even doing major overhauls if we need to extend their lives.  And that dry casks are FINE for storage of any amount of foreseeable waste.
> 
> ...


Hah that's a fascinating take on Plowshares or Atoms For Peace.  Nuke deep in the earth and set up some geothermal extraction.  I wonder how viable that really would be...


----------



## spirilis (Sep 9, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> But I remain a skeptic about breeding and thorium.  It has not been demonstrated at a decent scale and price point.  It is easy to draw up paper designs, hard to solve the materials and chemical separation problems.  If we needed to at any cost? Sure.  But there is a current cost to renewables + lithium storage.  And I think breeder reactors are well above that.



I do think this is a valid point and probably going to be for some time.  There is one use-case where I've seen the fast-spectrum breeding make sense - the catch being that the cost is high, but the reactor is intended to be used in remote communities (Alaska, Hawaii, etc) where electricity may already be north of 35 cents/kwh.

The Oklo startup's Aurora reactor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_nuclear_reactor - a tiny 1.5MW unit - employs fuel rods vaguely similar to the IFR, using a little bit of molten sodium metal inside but most of the cooling happens with heat pipes and supercritical CO2 rankine cycle generators.  The use of fast-spectrum self-breeding fuel enables the reactor to run continuously at full power with no refueling or reprocessing for 20 years straight.  Like a "nuclear battery" for a remote community.  That is very cool IMO.  They're moving along pretty well with the regulatory process but they are breaking new ground, as the NRC has never really looked at non-water cooled reactors.  They plan to develop larger, more ambitious reactors afterward.  But still.... time is not on our side.

For the rest of us in cheaper electricity markets, breeders have an uphill battle to prove.  I am curious if Elysium turns up anything groundbreaking though.  They're using ordinary sodium chloride salt, in a fast-spectrum breeder reactor where the design can scale from small to large with the main "reactor" portion of the plant stays the same size.  Ed Pheil talks about it here- https://www.titansofnuclear.com/experts/EdPheil


----------



## CaptSpiff (Sep 10, 2020)

woodgeek said:


> .....  So my plan is build one of these, put it in a deep borehole in dry rock in a low population area, and set it off.  All the energy goes into heat in the rock, and will remain there for thousands of years.  Most of the radioactive reaction products (from the fusion) have short lives.  Then drill other boreholes and extract the heat like its  high temp geothermal.
> Done.  Fusion power.  The bigger you make the device, the cheaper the power gets.


I just had a vision of a Mini-Me Woodgeek entering stage left and continuing the presentation details, while our Woodgeek stands by laughing an uncontrollable evil belly laugh.


----------



## ben94122 (Sep 24, 2020)

I got my rooftop solar with battery backup installed just before this summer's rolling blackouts and wildfire evacuation.  It meant that I could keep my roof sprinklers running from my well, powered by the solar panels, while we were evacuated and the power was out.  Also kept the freezers going.  Also keeps the wifi running, which means that if I'm home I can still get cell phone calls when the cell towers go down; our radio system works but it's nice to have a backup in case the repeater goes down.  There is always the sheriff coming to our house to find me (I take call for the local hospital), but I'd rather have my cell phone ring!


----------



## kennyp2339 (Sep 24, 2020)

ben94122 said:


> There is always the sheriff coming to our house to find me (I take call for the local hospital),


Man you just brought back some memories of the 80's in my neck of the woods. Our town had a pretty elaborate siren / horn network if there was a fire call (was in place since 1936) But there were times that the police would show up to peoples houses to pass along urgent messages if they couldn't be reached by telephone. 
Then I started riding the local ambulance back in the late 90's, I remember quite a few times pulling the rig over and asking someone that I saw outside if I could use there home phone to call the hospital (radio's were very poor around our area due to mountains and multiple dead spots, lol or being dispatched to emergency calls and not giving the house address, just the general area of where the call was ie: "make a left at the pink house, go up 4 streets towards the late and make the right at the house with the porch light on" for real, sorry to derail the thread, just going down memory lane.


----------



## blades (Sep 25, 2020)

Back in the day service calls in new industrial areas- no street names and mostly no # on the places, if you were lucky they might have a hand lettered sign somewhere behind a bush or construction derbis.


----------



## kennyp2339 (Sep 25, 2020)

Gist of this, by 2035 you will only be allowed to buy an electric vehicle if shopping for something new in CA, is the power grid ready for the extra demand? 
Seems like hot days and wild fire days, people living in more remote area's have the possibility of being trapped, with the procedure of rolling black outs due to load issues & planned shut off's due to high fire danger (since the government allowed PG&E to get sued for a fire 2 years ago. 
Electric demand is a funny thing that few realize, the biggest demand is usually between 12pm and 9pm in the evening, if basing KW demand and supplementing it with renewable (not dependable) energy then there is a possibility of a power gap forming between 4pm to 12am when industrial load trails off but electric car load would be taking its place, I think that 15yrs is not enough time to develop & upgrade infrastructure unless the government steps in and stream lines better generation and better distribution grids, which unfortunately will come at a cost to the tax payer and user with demand fee's and surcharges.  
While I personally think electric vehicles will become the new norm, more populated area's are not ready for it, how many times in the news have we all seen black outs or large outages due to heat waves and arctic cold snaps or even storms like hurricanes, ice, derecho's,  its all over the country, we have a very fragile system that is pushed to its limits more so than not, things are going to get very interesting. 
And for the consumer, I did an electric study for a tesla charging station, 10 port rapid charge station will use approx 650kva on a 12.5 system with a secondary voltage of 277/480, thats some amperage there, the average home charging system will require a main service upgrade of 300amps, that based off of an average 2500 sq ft home with (2) 3.5 ton ac's, 5kw of lighting, electric range and dryer.  Some larger homes will require its own separate 200 amp service for car charging, doesn't change anything on the street because the utility co will still use diversified load and have to upgrade primary, secondary and transformers, but the homeowner will be looking at an upgrade bill from a private electrician and such, on top of increased yearly registration fee's to the state to maintain the roads since gas tax will be dwindling.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 25, 2020)

Interesting and reasoned view Kenny.

The studies I read (a while ago) suggested that while electrification would add new loads to the grid, these would be helpful to the industry, bc without them, many utilities would see a steady decline in demand.  Its much easier to add new equipment when the business is going up, even a little.  The decline is mostly due to efficiency improvements.  A LOT of folks in CA have AC and Heat Pump heating, and that is their major annual load.   So, some improvements in engineering those can offset a big chunk of the new load, and the 15 year time frame is OK for turnover on that equipment.

More to the point, the new EV loads are largely dispatchable (setting time of charging), unlike the AC/HP combos.  So a little demand management can go a long way.  There is a little networking and software, but if the utility takes a cent of the price of power if you comply, many will.

I also noticed that Newsom blamed neighboring states for the electricity shortage.


----------



## thecoalman (Sep 28, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Grid batteries  are being built and added to the grid but they are just a drop in the bucket to what is needed to keep supply during record heat.



The irony about battery storage or any storage for that matter is it that it's more applicable to conventional power.  You would only need base load plants and a small amount storage to act as a buffer. The peaking plants that are very expensive to run becsue of lack of use are eliminated.


----------



## thecoalman (Sep 28, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> None of the peakers units around here are oil fired, they are all NG.  Never seen an oil fired unit actually.  Didn't know they even existed.



Here in the Northeast they required a lot of power plants to install dual capability in gas plants. The issue that emerged in 2016 is the gas pipeline infrastructure was inadequate to supply demand, simply not enough pipe.  They were near the tipping point of brownouts/blackouts. Was it 2019 we had another long cold spell? A lot of those plants implemented the oil and there probably would of been blackouts had they not required oil capability.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 28, 2020)

I personally was involved in testing four 50 MW peakers in CT that NRG built several years ago with dual fuel capability. Soon after, NRG put 4 more on line also in CT with that capability. Folks forget that northern New England used to be at the end of very long gas pipeline starting in the south. The Canadians had a gas strike off Sable Island Nova Scotia that everyone thought would be a big one and there was lots of money spent to put in infrastructure to backfeed the eastern states pipeline but Sable Island never really put the volume into the pipeline that was  expected. PNGTS put in a pipeline connecting with Canadian Gas distribution in Quebec to Portland Maine but it wasnt cheap gas and without storage it can not supply fuel at a moments notice. Since there is minimal gas storage in New England, large volumes of gas is not available at a moments notice unlike CA that has or had large storage capacity so the peakers in New England run on "distillate" which is basically #1 or jet fuel. They do bid into the day ahead market on occasion when they bet that power prices will be high the following day and if the spark spread is good enough they may line up some gas. Liquid fuel is easier to start if the grid is out. Pipeline natural gas is frequently low pressure so it needs to be compressed to higher pressure. That eats up a lot of HP that needs to be supplied by a black start generator (or increasingly a battery). Liquid fuel requires far less HP to black start since it does not need a compressor.  The trade off its dirtier so most peakers are limited to only so many hours of operation per year on oil.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 28, 2020)

Interesting.  In as much as I'm not educated on peakers units other than knowing a technician, I find any information enlightening.  Got my own unit next to the barn.  27KW diesel fired standby feeding off a 1000 gallon diesel storage tank (that also fuels all the farm machinery) and of course it's filled with off road (no use tax) diesel.  A necessary evil out here in remote America.


----------



## thecoalman (Sep 29, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> Interesting.  In as much as I'm not educated on peakers units other than knowing a technician, I find any information enlightening.



Historically coal, nuclear and hydro was used for base load because of the lower cost. Other than down time for maintenance they run constantly at or near full capacity for 60+ years. Not only is the fuel cheap but you are fully utilizing your capital investment in the plant.   Gas plant made up the rest of the mix, despite the higher cost of the fuel. They are more adaptable to variable demand and cheaper to build which made them more cost effective for that role. The newest gas plants also use combined cycle which makes them much more efficient.

 With the lower cost of gas, higher efficiency and the ability to more adequately meet the increasing variable demand caused by renewable energy it's becoming the fuel of choice for power plants. Base load plants both coal and nuclear are not adaptable to that variable demand. However as more renewable comes on the grid you are no longer fully utilizing that capital investment, it drives the cost per kWh up no matter what the fuel is. 

Storage at least for solar and wind is a pipe a dream. When it's 0 degrees out in the northeast, the wind isn't blowing, the sun is the lowest in the sky, it's going to be like that for a week and record peak demand is being hit at 8AM.  What is your capacity and storage requirements for that? The capital investment in conventional plants never goes away.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 29, 2020)

thecoalman said:


> Historically coal, nuclear and hydro was used for base load because of the lower cost. Other than down time for maintenance they run constantly at or near full capacity for 60+ years. Not only is the fuel cheap but you are fully utilizing your capital investment in the plant.   Gas plant made up the rest of the mix, despite the higher cost of the fuel. They are more adaptable to variable demand and cheaper to build which made them more cost effective for that role. The newest gas plants also use combined cycle which makes them much more efficient.
> 
> With the lower cost of gas, higher efficiency and the ability to more adequately meet the increasing variable demand caused by renewable energy it's becoming the fuel of choice for power plants. Base load plants both coal and nuclear are not adaptable to that variable demand. However as more renewable comes on the grid you are no longer fully utilizing that capital investment, it drives the cost per kWh up no matter what the fuel is.
> 
> Storage at least for solar and wind is a pipe a dream. When it's 0 degrees out in the northeast, the wind isn't blowing, the sun is the lowest in the sky, it's going to be like that for a week and record peak demand is being hit at 8AM.  What is your capacity and storage requirements for that? The capital investment in conventional plants never goes away.


Far as I'm concerned, renewable energy sources are a bad joke on consumers who get to pay for the folly.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 30, 2020)

thecoalman said:


> Storage at least for solar and wind is a pipe a dream. When it's 0 degrees out in the northeast, the wind isn't blowing, the sun is the lowest in the sky, it's going to be like that for a week and record peak demand is being hit at 8AM.  What is your capacity and storage requirements for that? The capital investment in conventional plants never goes away.



I agree that seasonal or even weeks long storage with batteries is pretty hopeless for the foreseeable future.  But the case you're mentioning, New England in the winter, which is inadequate in Solar, is great in the Wind channel.  Larger and taller onshore turbines are not only cheaper per kWh than smaller turbines (and current solar), they produce more power in a given farm footprint and often have capacity factors well over 50%.  Week-long downtimes do not occur in practice.

England also has crappy solar, and not much hydro, and it is running >30% renewable energy in 2020, with wind as the backbone.  With a higher population density that New England.

Many detailed engineering studies have designed 100% renewable + battery storage power systems for different regions in the US, using existing or currently in development tech (not pie in the sky super-grids or hydrogen BS).  The designs for New England contain a rather large proportion of wind power for the reason you mention (peak loads in winter during crappy solar months).  The generation costs are reasonable compared to conventional, but current battery costs more than triple the cost relative to that (and no one makes enough batteries currently).  The cost and supply of the needed batteries are expected to be not a problem in a few years.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 30, 2020)

The wind resource is available off shore along the east coast. The current administration threw a big road block in when they required a permitting approach that could take several years to complete that locks most offshore wind projects out.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 30, 2020)

One thing that always seems to escape any conversation on renewable energy is where the rare earth minerals come from for use in solar panels and batteries?  You all know the answer but like to avoid that, and anyone versed on solar power knows the drawbacks like degrading output and the removal of productive cropland for solar installations.  Don't like the term 'farm'.  They are not farms, they are industrial installations.  Big issue with wind power too.  When wind turbines become functionally obsolete, the disposal cost is staggering, especially for the blades (which have to be replaced often during operation.

I'm not adverse to renewable's but at what cost?


----------



## SidecarFlip (Sep 30, 2020)

Far as Kalifornia is concerned, they are making their own bed, let them sleep in it.


----------



## begreen (Sep 30, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> One thing that always seems to escape any conversation on renewable energy is where the rare earth minerals come from for use in solar panels and batteries?  You all know the answer but like to avoid that, and anyone versed on solar power knows the drawbacks like degrading output and the removal of productive cropland for solar installations.  Don't like the term 'farm'.  They are not farms, they are industrial installations.  Big issue with wind power too.  When wind turbines become functionally obsolete, the disposal cost is staggering, especially for the blades (which have to be replaced often during operation.
> 
> I'm not adverse to renewable's but at what cost?


There are intrinsic costs to any energy production, no free lunch. Often overlooked or swept under the carpet are the environmental and health costs. They don't show up on a company's balance sheet because they are dumped on the public, but they are at times very high.

Battery developments are progressing rapidly. One outcome, besides greater energy density, is a decreasing dependency on materials like cobalt. Likewise development is occurring in solar and propulsion. Yes, wind turbine blades are hard to recycle. This is another issue to be addressed. A firm in Texas, GFS, has developed a recycling solution. They can currently process 2-3 blades an hour but are planning on significant expansion.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 30, 2020)

The main "rare" ingredient for solar panels is silica which is readily abundant but expensive to purify and manufacture the actual wafers. There is whole new class of panels that seem to be emerging rapidly using perskovite.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perovskite_solar_cell which is abundant and cheaper to manufacturer. There have also been so called organic technologies that have popped up but the longevity was not sufficient.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konarka_Technologies. I got to see their production line before they went bankrupt, they used an old Polaroid factory and many of the support systems.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Oct 1, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> ..... removal of productive cropland for solar installations.  Don't like the term 'farm'.


I like the term solar farm, but many of our local "farm operations" have re-purposed 20-50+ acres of land into PV production and argued that it was still "farming" under the zoning requirements. It worked for a few years until the local govt realized the profitability and put an end to that. The Farms argued that the PV operation was a tiny portion of the total farm acreage and was ancillary, just like they were allowed with a road front farm stand with parking. Of course one farm failed to reveal that the PV revenue was 40% of the total farm revenue. Now they are considered an industrial facility, and the rush to convert has slowed down significantly.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Oct 1, 2020)

When you take ground out of production for a non growing scenario.  It's not a farm.  How it plays.


----------



## begreen (Oct 1, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> When you take ground out of production for a non growing scenario.  It's not a farm.  How it plays.


It's still used as a term in energy, like a fuel tank farm.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 1, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> Far as I'm concerned, renewable energy sources are a bad joke on consumers who get to pay for the folly.



But what's the alternative? Ignore the whole topic of climate change for a moment. Eventually a day will come when fossil fuels run out, then what? The logical move is to generate as much energy as possible from renewable sources to stretch the lifetime of fossil fuels for uses that can't as easily run on renewables.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 2, 2020)

The world will not run out of fossil fuels, the world will survive. Human society probably will not due to the build up of climate impacts of  burning millions of years of stored carbon in 100s of years.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 2, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> The world will not run out of fossil fuels, the world will survive. Human society probably will not due to the build up of climate impacts of  burning millions of years of stored carbon in 100s of years.



You totally missed my point.

But yes we would run out fossil fuels, as is the case with the exploitation of any finite resource.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 2, 2020)

I guess you missed my point,, "leaving aside the whole topic of climate change" is the point. Resource depletion used to be the issue, aka Peak Oil. The far greater issue is disposing of the waste CO2 from burning carbon before the climate is so degraded that world population starts to plummet. There will be plenty of fossil fuels available long after the climate is past the tipping point. Unless the world stops using them, the remaining human population will not need them. Already large oil majors are writing down their high cost recoverable reserves as even they have seen the writing on the wall that the atmosphere can not absorb the carbon from the current reserves let alone new discoveries. 

It is interesting to me that Peak Oil may actually have occurred not due to lack of resource but lack of ability to deal with the waste products.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 2, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> I guess you missed my point,, "leaving aside the whole topic of climate change" is the point. Resource depletion used to be the issue, aka Peak Oil. The far greater issue is disposing of the waste CO2 from burning carbon before the climate is so degraded that world population starts to plummet. There will be plenty of fossil fuels available long after the climate is past the tipping point. Unless the world stops using them, the remaining human population will not need them. Already large oil majors are writing down their high cost recoverable reserves as even they have seen the writing on the wall that the atmosphere can not absorb the carbon from the current reserves let alone new discoveries.
> 
> It is interesting to me that Peak Oil may actually have occurred not due to lack of resource but lack of ability to deal with the waste products.



You can pull whatever information you want to make your point, but atmospheric CO2 levels paint the factual story. With very few exceptions we set records for the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere every year. It took what 65 years to go from 300ppm to 400ppm? My guess is it will take less than 50 years to go from 400ppm to 500ppm. Fossil fuel use on a per capita basis may have gone down slightly from the peak, but the total amount is still increasing.

A major shift is needed to change this, and I don't see it happening. China and India continue to amass wealth and with it the funds to purchase and consume more fossil fuels. Even in Canada and the US there is a significant portion of the population that can't be convinced that climate change is occurring, or is human induced.

I stand by my statement, we may never completely "run out" of fossil fuels, but the cheap to extract ones will be exhausted before alternative energy completely takes over. Even if the western world limits their extraction, Russia, China, the Middle East, and Africa will continue the extraction.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Oct 2, 2020)

At 70 and a cancer survivor, I'm not concerned much with what if's.  My tenure here is limited anyway and I intend to have fun while it lasts and that fun don't have anything to do with carbon footprint or peak oil or the Green New Deal or a 4 wheel toaster either.  Someone else can agonize over that stuff.  I'll be a long time into my dirt nap when that comes down.  Until then. I'll enjoy my infernal combustion engines (gas) and my smoking pre 4 emissions diesels too.  Diesel smoke....  hillbilly incense.


----------



## thecoalman (Oct 7, 2020)

ABMax24 said:


> You totally missed my point.
> 
> But yes we would run out fossil fuels, as is the case with the exploitation of any finite resource.




Obviuosly there is a limit but here in the US as a practical matter it might as well be infinite especially where the coal is concerned.  If you did absolutely nothing to curb it's use it would be inevitable that technology would superseded it before the supply ran out. Estimated recoverable reserves adjusted for current growth and using today's tech is about 125 years.  That is just the coal they know with abosulute certainty exists and can be feasibly mined, total estimated reserves including unknown deposits is off the charts and may be a few thousand years.


----------



## SidecarFlip (Oct 7, 2020)

None of it concerns me.  I'll be long time gone.


----------



## begreen (Oct 7, 2020)

SidecarFlip said:


> None of it concerns me.  I'll be long time gone.


We get it. This is not about any one individual.


----------



## Mech e (Oct 10, 2020)

The power mess in CA can be solved by allowing competition,  repairing/updating the delivery system and maintaining it, and moving back to nuclear power generation.


----------



## Highbeam (Oct 11, 2020)

I agree that nuclear is what will save us. It’s so easy and simple. We put reactors, sometimes two, on boats for crying out loud and have been for decades.They’re all over the place and we’re jacking around with coal, oil, gas, windmills,etc.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 12, 2020)

I'm all in for nuclear from an engineering POV, but cost seems to be a big factor.  Since most analysts think that nuclear costs 2-3X what renewables cost, and more than renewables + storage at today's prices, there you are.  Absolutely fine for powering a sub or carrier (where the cost difference is negligible), but for running my microwave....nope.

And its not obvious that more engineering will bring costs down....we've already spent trillions on  nuclear tech (today $$s).  We shoould be down the learning curve, no?

Of course, a lot of that money was non-competitive, so learning curve doesn't apply.  Not unlike rocket science.  We spent trillions there too, building and flying 1960s tech in a non-competitive (satellite launch) marketplace.  And lots of moaning about the costs.  And then SpaceX shows that there ARE innovation possibilities (like much better engines and hypersonic retro-propulsion to enable landinds), brings down costs by a factor of 3 (while building all the hardware in the Bay Area), and captures the whole launch global market in a few years.

So I can't rule out nukes, but we could wait decades for someone like NukeX to come along and innovate to lower costs.


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 12, 2020)

The small factory produced modular reactors are the only short term option. B&W has been building nukes for the navy for a long time, they were in the running but I think the parent company bankruptcy knocked them out.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 12, 2020)

It could be harder to be a 'disruptive' startup in nuclear, versus aerospace or other tech, bc a lot of the issues are material issues that take years if not decades to show up.  With a rocket, its one and done.  Test fire it, fly it, collect your cash.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 12, 2020)

Technologically I think Nuclear is feasible, I think the engineering, and construction are possible within reasonable time frames.

The issue is public perception, the incidents with Fukishima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island will cause mass protests, particularly if the project is well publicized. We face this daily with oil and gas, we can't get pipelines built because of the lengthy approval processes driven by the opinion (of in many cases) the uninformed public. In the Northeast US, powerplants are being built dual fuel, and in some places there are moratoriums on new natural gas service because there isn't enough gas available to supply demand. So instead oil and even coal are being used in place. Sure makes sense doesn't it?

Nuclear will face the same uphill battle, and will face problems finding investment, no one wants to put up billions of dollars and wait years or even a decade before the first shovel hits the dirt, if the project even gets approved.


----------



## begreen (Oct 12, 2020)

ABMax24 said:


> Nuclear will face the same uphill battle, and will face problems finding investment, no one wants to put up billions of dollars and wait years or even a decade before the first shovel hits the dirt, if the project even gets approved.


Agreed. And then there is the expensive and unresolved waste problem that continues to fester.


----------



## ABMax24 (Oct 12, 2020)

begreen said:


> Agreed. And then there is the expensive and unresolved waste problem that continues to fester.



I know there's a few people that figure the waste could come up north and be disposed of in the abandoned uranium mines, since the surrounding rock is fairly impermeable and radioactive anyway.

A similar concept could be used for the powerplants themselves, if the uranium could be mined, processed, consumed, and disposed of on one location in the north it limits the risk of radioactive contamination. Particularly if all facilities were placed underground to avoid contact with the atmosphere in the event of an incident. One major issue with this is transmitting the energy to market, it would require an extensive transmission system to get the energy south.

At some point we are going to have to do something we don't want to. Do we build wind turbines and solar farms in every corner of the globe? Do we mine lithium by the the millions of tons to store the intermittent energy from wind and solar? Do we build nuclear plants to provide a source of consistent energy to the market and understand that it comes with the issue of dealing with the waste? Or do we continue to burn fossil fuels as we head for 500ppm CO2, and continue to quibble about the small issues with any other energy form?
My bet is placed on the last one.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Oct 13, 2020)

begreen said:


> Agreed. And then there is the expensive and unresolved waste problem that continues to fester.


The dangers from mis-operating a Nuclear Plant are real and present; the storage of spent fuel is many orders of risk lower.
We need to focus on developing a nuclear plant process that fails safe, with automatic runbacks that won't jeopardize an operators job. The way to solve the later is to build smaller 200-300 MW plants that don't have the financial and grid impact of the present 1000-1200 MW units. One of the biggest risks is when a human operator tries to "save or ride thru" an abnormality because the cost and scrutiny of any runback or shutdown is potential career ending.

And yes, the classroom training already says "if in doubt, shut it down", but textbook seldom holds in realtime ops.


----------



## semipro (Oct 13, 2020)

CaptSpiff said:


> And yes, the classroom training already says "if in doubt, shut it down", but textbook seldom holds in realtime ops.


It's interesting that the very act of shutting down the Chernobyl reactor is what ultimately destroyed it. 

I've been ingesting a lot of info lately about nuclear power and unintended nuclear excursions and the one thing that strikes me the most is that despite engineering in multiple failsafe systems nature has a way of showing us the error of our ways through the exercise of probabilities as we take on the impossible quest of identifying those edge case scenarios that may result in failures. 

There are still many things we don't understand about the longer-term effects of radiation on materials as @woodgeek  mentioned. 

A recent paper reveals some interesting info on how nuclear compares to renewables WRT carbon emissions.   I haven't read this paper but I can't help but believe that nuclear is not quite the cure-all as touted when life-cycle costs are considered.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 14, 2020)

Lots of informed opinion about nukes around here, but I would add that the current uranium fuel cycle is terribly inefficient.  So we have these conventional reactors that are terribly expensive to build on a $/Watt perspective, and which are so inefficient at burning U that at modestly expanded hypothetical use rates we would run out of uranium in decades, not centuries. The industry got a shot in the arm with a lot of cheap enriched uranium becoming available after the end of the Cold War, but that has worked through the system.

So a long term quasi-sustainable nuclear industry is unlikely for TWO reasons, the conventional plants are both too costly AND not sustainable.  Of course, we can break out stories about breeders and Thorium, which would enable centuries of power production, but there is no reason to think that those systems can be built more cheaply than the existing conventional plants.  So we need to solve the cost problem twice over....first to make conventional nuke plants cheaper than renewables AND then to do it again with breeders/thorium plants.

And while all that is happening, the cost of renewables and lithium batteries will just keep falling.  Good luck winning that race.


----------



## Mech e (Oct 14, 2020)

I don't think better batteries will solve CA's energy woes.  If things turn out well in November,  perhaps this initiative will move forward:









						Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership
					

America is on the brink of losing its ability to produce domestic uranium for the fabrication of nuclear fuel.




					www.energy.gov


----------



## peakbagger (Oct 14, 2020)

One of the larger owners of hydro electric power plants in my area, Brookfield, is in the process of installing batteries adjacent to their mostly run of the river hydro plants. They bought a lot of the former hydro plants that supplied the large pulp and paper complexes in Northern New England (and were arguably the death knell for at least two of the pulp and paper mills).  Unlike the big dams in the Southeast and West coast many of the original dams were "run of the river" dams with no signficant upstream storage. That means that the dams generate power 24/7 no matter what the power demand is. Of late wholesale power rates during off peak hours drops significantly to the point where they can go negative. Installing batteries allows the dam operator to charge them up when the rates are low and discharge them when the rates are high. Even with a big upstream reservoir, a conventional hydro plant without batteries generally have to maintain a minimum river flow at the discharge of the dam as widely varying flows and lake elevations have significant environmental issues so having batteries in addition to reservoir allows faster response for power demand. There are  various markets in the region for fast response power supply and a premium paid for "green power" during these fast supply events. These markets are generally quite profitable so its win for the regional grid. 

Many of these dams date back to the early 1900s, some were there long before there was a grid. A couple of the dams that my former employer owned before Brookfield were historic landmarks. Interesting to see the new life they can get out of them by adding batteries.  One of the other hydro systems they bought 20 years ago was a 40 cycle system as that was the arbitrary frequency that the pulp and paper mills used when they were built. 40 Cycle works fine for motors although the synchronous speed is different but they give a distinct flicker to incandescents. The local people had to buy clocks set up for 40 cycle as otherwise the clocks would be off.


----------



## Mech e (Oct 14, 2020)

In CA, hydroelectric production represents about 15% of the total.


----------

