Solar power is growing so fast in California that it is turning the state’s power system upside down

[n2doc]

Catching Rays in California, and Storing Them
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — Solar power is growing so fast in California — with installations by customers increasing tenfold since 2006 — that it is turning the state’s power system upside down.

In a twist that is being closely watched by power companies around the country, California utilities will install massive banks of batteries and other devices to store the power surplus created by solar panels in the afternoon, when the sun’s rays are strong. The batteries are then to begin discharging power into California’s electric grid in the early evening, around sunset, when the solar generation of energy dies down but demand rises as millions of people get home and turn on air-conditioners, televisions and other electricity gobblers.

The new system is the opposite of an idea utilities have considered for years: Use batteries to store power at night from traditional sources, like natural gas and coal, and run them down in the peak heat of late afternoon.

“It is the reverse of the way we’ve always thought of storage,” Gregory Reed, director of the Electric Power Initiative at the University of Pittsburgh.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/business/energy-environment/catching-some-rays-in-california-and-storing-them.html?_r=0

[Bennyboy]

1. Everywhere you look you see panels aorund here...

On City Hall and Walmart. In residential neighborhoods and retro fitted State buildings.

Especially in Sacramento, thanks to SMUD, a citizen owned utility. (Socialism you know) where they have no financial incentive to stop solar.

Not so good in other locales however.....In Hawaii the utility there is starting to maneuver to stop solar.

Here's a thread I started http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024224736

[lostincalifornia]

3. This is absolutely criminal. They want to penalize those who want to become energy independent

and help the environment, and at the same time save money

Somewhere I heard, most likely from republicans, is that they consider those that go solar as "freeloaders", and that they should be forced to pay more

If this country follows that line of thinking, along with its war on science, we deserve to be left behind other countries

Europe encourages alternative energy, and wow, they even believe in real healthcare for all

[UCmeNdc]

12. You have heard right my friend, the GOP is secretly trying to raise a tax on solar

An alliance of corporations and conservative activists is mobilising to penalise homeowners who install their own solar panels – casting them as “freeriders” – in a sweeping new offensive against renewable energy, the Guardian has learned.


Here is the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251342252


More Links to the power industry slowing private solar growth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112755221

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751247

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014516285

[Swede Atlanta]

14. They are mischaracterizing them as "free riders"........

They are active contributors to the common energy pool so should be viewed as "energy creators" (you know like the job creators).

That said, to the extent they continue to participate in the grid by adding power during daylight hours and draw from the grid at other times, they should be paying an appropriate fee for the storage and retrieval that the power grid provides.

Let's say the average price of a kilowatt is $.12 based on a cost of $.08 (I'm just using these for illustration purposes). Let's say the cost to store and then send that stored kilowatt back out onto the grid is $.04, then the consumer should pay perhaps $.06 for that kilowatt. That is still 50% of the cost for power generated elsewhere.

There is a cost to store and then provision that stored energy. Companies/utilities that provide the storage and re-provision are entitled to cover their costs plus some profit.

But to call them "freeloaders or free-riders" is exactly the opposite of what they are UNLESS they are not paying for the costs of storing and then providing that energy when needed.

[UCmeNdc]

21. They are power producers and selling a product just like the power companies.

To call them "free loaders" for producing and selling energy would mean the energy companies are also "free loaders".

[BadgerKid]

24. Read once where elec cos. buy at lowest rate

even if it's peak time. Profit uber alles I guess.

[Brother Buzz]

17. SMUD is heavely invested in wind power, too

SMUD has had wind turbines parked over in Solano County since 1994. The 5,400-acre wind farm/ranch is in the Montezuma Hills, which is considered one of the best wind resource areas in the state. It has a 230 MW of capacity, enough to power 79,000 homes.

[lostincalifornia]

2. If Congress does not renew the renewable energy bill, not sure what impact that will have

[nolabels]

4. If congress doesn't renew the clean water act.........

I will just join the dog and start drinking toilet water. Congress is behind the eight-ball here, unless they make a criminal offense to have solar panels at your home, they still be a growing industry no matter what those numb-nuts do.

[lostincalifornia]

11. They may not make it a criminal offense, but there is a lot of grumblings in some states where they

want to level a surcharge on solar

[nolabels]

41. I will bet the fallout from such will not help the GOP

only a few percentage points could only capsize that tiny dingy they are floating around on. I hope they press on, it will be fun to watch at any rate. It will never happen in California (where i live also), the republicans already blew it here so badly and are out of the running for at long time in the least.

I put in solar four years ago and figure i could use some of the money i saved from it to help defeat more of those contemptuous GOP bastards.

[msongs]

5. corporate power entities like Edison an PGE are becoming obsolete. rooftop solar for all nt

[Bennyboy]

6. They are fighting back....

see my post above. They are not going to go without a fight and as long as they can keep battery technology fromt he public, they will be able to stay linked. Rooftop don't work without a way to store it.

[SHRED]

15. Rooftop PV solar does work without storage...

...in the sense that the corporate energy provider receives a minimal fee from the consumer rather than the outrageous electricity rates as seen in some areas.

[wtmusic]

35. Power to the people!

Um, after the revolution, what are you going to run your computer on after the sun goes down?

[karadax]

7. Anything to keep us from near self sufficient homes.

I remember reading awhile back about how power companies were trying real hard to stop homeowners from installing their own battery banks to store their generated solar energy. They cited that it'd be hard to tell if it was genuine solar being sold back to the utility or if the customer simply plugged in to charge them up. It would be tainted green energy. Hah!

They'd rather keep the control, keep us dependent on them and charge a premium.

[Thinkingabout]

8. I said several years ago if the US had directed monies paid for the war of choice towards

solar power we would be dollars ahead and well on our way to powering our homes and businesses. Now we have lost lives and wasted money, even in trying to restore a country in which we invaded.

[Gman]

10. All for an outdated fuel source, oil

[Thinkingabout]

31. And they continue to protect the industry and give lots of oil tax breaks, go figure.

[Gman]

9. This is more information on why ALEC is going to push for legislation to stop the growth of solar

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/04/alec-freerider-homeowners-assault-clean-energy

[bcool]

13. The power companies are trying to thwart solar growth

We're having panels installed next month, but we're limited by the local utility (Ameren in St. Louis) to putting in enough to generate what our last 12 month's usage was.

Which is a bummer, because we wanted to size for increased usage due to my working from home now, plus a potential future electric car.

It seems odd that they wouldn't let us generate more than we need, since they would benefit from the excess since we'll be net metering and any credits can only be used for a year.

[SHRED]

16. The power company lobbyists control building codes and local councils

[The Wizard]

18. Yes we can. (NT)

[Chuuku Davis]

19. That is a LOT of batteries!

What type do they use?

[karadax]

25. If you google Vanadium Redox Battery this seems to be where it's heading.

It's cheap and the batteries are low maintenance. They can sit for a long time and keep their charge. Exactly what power companies would want in their initial scenario of renewable energy being stored as an emergency backup.

American Vanadium - based in Canada is an example.

[wtmusic]

36. The cost for vanadium flow backup in CA would be approximately $17 billion per hour.

This source estimates $1,000/kwh:

www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439493/FULLTEXT01.pdf?

CA burns through about 400 GWh of energy/day. Not cheap - prohibitively expensive.

[jeff47]

45. Don't need that kind of battery for this application

You don't need a battery that can sit for a long time. You only need to keep the charge for a few hours - from peak solar generation in the afternoon to peak electric usage in the evening.

Frankly they're probably using lead-acid. It's much cheaper than anything else, and properly-sized batteries work for a very, very long time (the lead-acid used in cars is under-sized, which is why car batteries wear out).

[bananas]

20. "There is no longer a peak during the day - that’s now actually a valley"

“There is no longer a peak during the day — that’s now actually a valley,” said Christopher R. Cook, president of Solar Grid Storage, a Pennsylvania company that installs batteries connected to solar arrays.

[Brother Buzz]

26. Quack!

[Demeter]

22. Enron Blowback

The masters of the Universe are delusional.

[Bluestar]

30. It's called karma, baby! n/t

[tclambert]

23. Yay, California.

Maybe American civilization has hope.

I'm still betting on the killer robots.

[notadmblnd]

27. And as an added bonus for the utilities

The power companies will figure out a way to charge solar users to store all that free energy that they will resell.

[Blanks]

28. There's a TED talk where the speaker talks about...

Electric cars feeding back into the grid in the evening. As battery technology improves - perhaps one day we can look forward to working from home and our automobile providing the energy for our house at night.

[Curmudgeoness]

29. After what Enron did to power customers in California,

I am not surprised that some many people have installed solar panels. They were raped by Enron, and do not intend on letting this happen again.

[AAO]

32. Someone has to lead the way, and it won't be Wisconsin

so I wish California the best. I hope they can truly help lead to a brighter tomorrow.

[DeSwiss]

33. Well at least they figured out......

...that they had it bass-ackwards all along.

- Which goes for pretty much all the rest of it too, unfortunately......

K&R



''Whatever is funny is subversive, every joke is ultimately a custard pie...
a dirty joke is a sort of mental rebellion.'' ~George Orwell

[wtmusic]

34. Nonsense.

CA gets 1% of its power from solar.

http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_so.pdf

The state is spending $55 million on a storage facility which would have been able to power the state at 12 noon today for less than two seconds.

http://www.smartgrid.gov/project/southern_california_edison_company_tehachapi_wind_energy_storage_project
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx

The cost for enough batteries to power California for 1 day would be $1.1 trillion, or 8 years of California's entire state budget.

http://theenergycollective.com/jeffstjohn/319121/grid-scale-energy-storage-4-ways-grow-2014#comment-103146

I live in CA, nothing's getting turned "upside down", and this thread displays an abysmal understanding of electricity and energy storage.

[UCmeNdc]

37. This is nonsense

Since you are discussing Apples while everyone else is discussing oranges.

The State may only get 1% of its solar power from its own infrastructure invested in solar energy, but the individual consumer may get 100% of their energy needs from solar energy. We are talking about the individual being able to reduce their respective energy costs. Solar energy is only viable on the small scale. Individual solar house units can produce enough energy with their own battery blocks that they do not need the CA power grid. The power companies want to stop this progression by Taxing and regulations on individual solar building installations.

[wtmusic]

38. Nope.

"Electricity is produced from a number of energy sources. In the State Energy Data System (SEDS), coal, natural gas, and petroleum are measured in physical units of thousand short tons, million cubic feet, and thousand barrels, respectively, as they are consumed by the electric power sector. Since wood and waste are measured in a variety of physical units, they are converted to the equivalent heat content and entered into SEDS measured in British thermal units. Because comparable measures in physical units for nuclear power, hydroelectric, wood, waste, geothermal, wind, photo- voltaic, and solar thermal energy sources are not available, energy output in the form of electricity produced from these energy sources, in million kilowatthours, is used instead."

http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_use/notes/use_elec.pdf

The statistic reflects total solar power generation in California.

I agree that solar is only viable on the small scale. Its significance toward reducing the state's carbon emissions is, and will always be, inconsequential.

[UCmeNdc]

39. Yes, on a building by building basis all structures in the state need to convert to a solar energy

Every building needs its own solar panel system installed to produce its own energy needs. This is quite possible. But the government does not need to tax the innovators as they develop this concept.

[kristopher]

42. Welcome back atom

Nothing's changed I see; You're still trying to spread FUD about the technologies that are putting nuclear power out of business.
Let's start with your lack of dedication to accurate information.

1) You've used a 2011 value (2012 & 2013 saw extraordinary growth for solar) that doesn't include residential rooftop solar.

California's statement is far more clear than the footnotes to footnotes you have to backtrack through in the EIA data:

Reporting requirements for Total System Power are limited to projects rated at 1 MW and larger. Because most solar PV systems on residential households and businesses are less than 1 MW, data on these installations is not collected. As more installations of solar PV and other "behind the meter" distributed generation technologies take place, along with continued gains in energy efficiency, displacement of power delivered by utilities as represented on within Total System Power may be impacted. As distributed generation systems become a more significant portion of the state's generation mix, it may be appropriate to reconsider the exclusion of these smaller, systems from the Total System Power summary.

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

This is California's page on solar:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/renewables/solar/index.html

Since the EIA gets it state statistics from the states themselves it's pretty clear your number isn't valid (not that I'd expect you to care based on your history).

2) Whatever the actual existing amount of generation is, it isn't spread evenly over the market place. It is produced at a time when the power consumed costs the most. Many centralized thermal fossil generators rely heavily on selling a portion of their production into this high value market. They rely on it so heavily in fact, that the reductions brought about by the input of no-fuel-cost renewables like wind and solar is having a significant negative impact on their overall economic viability.
The loss of that income forces these fossil plants to raise their off peak prices to cover their costs. That, in turn, enhances opportunity for expansion of alternative energy technologies such as various storage mediums (including batteries that at far less expensive than those you cited), wind, geothermal, biomass etc.

Do you know how much solar (and wind) are reducing the wholesale peaking costs for electricity on the spot market?
I didn't think so. Neither do I in this case but the behavior of and reports from utilities around the world tell us that the graph in banana's post 20 is a factual representation of the effect under discussion:



3) Now I have to ask, why in the world would any sane person suggest that there is a requirement for "enough batteries to power California for 1 day"?

Really, WTF are you talking about with that remark? The claim exemplifies the propagandist's thinking that is on display in the comments at your final link but it is so far removed from reality that I can't imagine why you used it.
The article above that comment, however, provides valid analysis that is totally lacking in what you've posted here and those of your fellow atomphiles that you kindly shared. Here is the link to the St. John's excellent summary of grid scale storage: "Grid-Scale Energy Storage: 4 Ways to Grow in 2014"
http://theenergycollective.com/jeffstjohn/319121/grid-scale-energy-storage-4-ways-grow-2014


In summary: we see that you've provided inaccurate data on solar production. You've miscast the nature of that production by removing it from the relevant market where its impact is greatest - which is directly tied to the op's topic. You've inappropriately and misleadingly tried to reframe the false numbers you've provided as not significant - totally ignoring the fact that the issue driving interest in the topic is the phenomenal growth rate solar and wind are delivering.
Additionally you've completely distorted the reasons for storage and the costs for storage technologies while making what can only be characterized as insane insinuations about the amount of storage and it's role in the systems under discussion.

Happy Holidays to you and yours.

[NealK]

40. Good. n/t

[kristopher]

43. Power grid will soon be 'last resort'

NRG CEO: Power grid will soon be 'last resort'

By Ethan Howland Dec. 11, 2013 |

Dive Brief:
- In a few years, most power will come from distributed sources and the centralized power grid will become a "last resort," according to David Crane, NRG Energy's president and CEO.

- Utility power sales have entered an “inexorable decline,” the "massive excess capacity" needed to meet peak demand "will become unnecessary" and the need for new power plants and transmission infrastructure "will be eliminated," Crane posits.

- Crane says three trends will lead consumers to stop buying power from utilities: cheap rooftop solar, automated conservation and extreme weather.

- But Crane sees a possible compromise between utilities and their customers on solar. Utilities should buy back excess supply that coincides with peak use, instead of offering average power supply costs, Crane said. Solar customers should pay for grid use at night or on cloudy days.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrg-ceo-power-grid-will-soon-be-last-resort/204998/

NRG is one of the largest power providers in the country and their mix of generating assets reflects the mix of the nation as a whole. For their CEO to make this prediction and begin steering the company in accordance with that vision is "the writing on the wall" for the existing energy structure.

[Auggie]

44. Wish I had the money to install solar

[happyslug]

46. This is going to upset manufacturers in California.

You have to understand, utilities charge higher fees to individuals so they can charge less to manufacturers. The old system of peak usage during the heat of the day (Mostly for use of Air Conditioning) permitted the utilities to charge home owners and renters a higher fee then it did manufactures who obtain contracts for lower fees (or who did do shopping in the net to get lower costs). Since most home owners and renters can NOT really pick their electrical sources (and can NOT pick the transmission line) they are in effect captive markets.

On the other hand, large manufactures and other users of electricity can obtain lower rates by simply looking for sources that will supply it at those lower rates. As to transmission lines, most of these high electricity users tend to have access to more then on transmission line, thus can play one against the other for the lowest rate possible.

This is what happened in Western Pennsylvania in the 1980s. In the early 1980s the Steel Mills went under and with them their demand for Natural Gas. Now, the Steel Mills had long obtained and built their own natural gas pipelines to their plants, these were run by Carnegie Natural Gas. Now, the regulated supply for that same area was Equitable gas Company. Thus the Steel Mills used their own Gas Supply, till they closed down.

Carnegie Gas then looked for other customers to replace the Steel Mills. These Customers were already along their gas lines, but never hooked up for Carnegie told them no, their gas was for the mills. With the Mills gone, Carnegie Gas decided to hook up these potential customers and offer to charge them less then the regulated utility, Equitable Gas, was charging them. Equitable Gas opposed this and asked the PUC to intervene, but the PUC said that was Competition and its job only existed in markets without competition. Thus Carnegie Natural Gas was able to replace most of its gas usage, lost with the Steel Mills, with these new smaller users of Natural Gas.

The whole concept of deregulation of Utility service came out of the problems caused by the collapse of the Steel Industry in the early 1980s. Carnegie Natural Gas showed you could get competition if two utility had parallel lines to each users of Natural Gas. Out of this dispute between Carnegie Natural Gas and Equitable Natural Gas came the idea of competition. The problem was how do you get competition without having duplicate lines? The Situation in Western Pennsylvania was do to duplicate lines, something you do not have almost anywhere else in the Country. Thus the idea of separating distribution of power from production of power. Everyone could buy they own natural gas or electricity, but also had to pay a regulated rate to have it sent to their home.

One aspect of the Carnegie Natural Gas vs Equitable Natural Gas fight is what Equitable tried to do (and did do to a degree) in using its profits from home owners who had NO access to Carnegie Gas, so it could lower the price of natural gas to those users who did have access to Carnegie Natural Gas. This policy was restricted but NOT stopped. Utilities use the profits from their captive customers to subsidy service to customers that have other options, and in many aspect this is the problem the California Electrical Companies see with Solar Power. Solar will permit those customers who are the mos captive to obtain power AND the transmission of that power independent of the utility companies. Thus what was previously a captive market, is no longer captive.

Worse, the profits from captive customers were used to keep rates down for larger electrical users. With those profits gone, how do you keep rates down for these larger users? Worse, these larger users can AFFORD to fight rate increases, something most home owners and renters can NOT do.

Thus the problem the Utilities are facing, they will have to increase rates to their LARGER customers, who will fight them tooth and nail over those rates. The utilities are NOT looking forward to those fights and prefer to figure out a way to get smaller users, i.e home owners and renters, to pay. Thus the accusation that such home owners and renters are free loaders, people HATE when they lose a subsidy, and they blame everyone but themselves for that lost.