Solar eating its own lunch in ERCOT

[OVERKILL]

This thread will be right up @MVAR and @Shannow's alleys!

As I've mentioned in the past, the correlated production profile of wind and solar can be challenging for the grid. Wind, because it tends to disappear during peak demand periods, solar, because it's most productive in the middle of the day, which, as penetration increases, leads to larger and larger "ramp" periods in the morning and evening where it's exiting the picture and other generators need to ramp up to fill that void. This is the "duck curve" phenomena, where demand is pushed down during the middle of the day, so the curve resembles the shape of a duck.

An acronym we see used in powergen is ELCC: Effective Load Carrying Capacity (or Capability). That is, the ability of a source to meet demand. On a grid with no solar, its initial ELCC is quite high, because peak demand is typically during the heat of the day in the summer months. As you install more solar, it "eats its own lunch", driving down demand during this period, while failing to meet demand during the "new peaks" during the morning and evening. This drives down its ELCC.

 

[OVERKILL]

This also has an affect on revenues (from the same thread):

2023, when solar had an ELCC of 11.7%:

2024 when solar had an ELCC of 3.9%:

As Xiao also points out, the value of batteries sees deflation as well, and has to compete against gas plants at higher durations. That is, the longer you aim for in terms of battery storage duration (4hrs is currently the standard), the cheaper it's going to be to run a gas plant, when gas is cheap (which it is). This kneecaps BES uptake:

Of course you can continue to throw subsidy schemes at these things, like is done in so many locations, but then that drives up the cost of energy, as consumers ultimately have to foot the bill for the total cost.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Some of this stuff is still fringe to me on the understanding of minutiae, but the big takeaway is: grid-level solar and wind not only add serious complexity to grid management, but they also leave the grid “high and dry” during times of peak loads, meaning that hydrocarbon- or nuclear-based sources are idled during times of peak insolation/wind, but then are required to ramp up extremely rapidly as soon as any variation occurs during sunset, storms, or almost any other weather phenomena. Is that a good 10k foot view? Plus the conventional sources are still required to maintain 100% of total grid need in conventional sources due to the periodic and unpredictable nature of “green” sources, which means there is always excess idled capacity far greater than a “normal” grid with no “sustainables” would be required to maintain, because conventional sources are always available when needed. Correct?

Long story short, every kW of solar or wind that’s added to grid capacity means the grid needs to maintain an equal number of kW of conventional sources to maintain output when “renewables” can’t provide their rated output or even close to it, right?

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

So tell me were do all of those solar panels go when they stop working?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

So tell me were do all of those solar panels go when they stop working?

Right next to all of the decommissioned turbine blades in the landfill, where they will stay for THOUSANDS of years.

 

[OVERKILL]

Some of this stuff is still fringe to me on the understanding of minutiae, but the big takeaway is: grid-level solar and wind not only add serious complexity to grid management, but they also leave the grid “high and dry” during times of peak loads, meaning that hydrocarbon- or nuclear-based sources are idled during times of peak insolation/wind, but then are required to ramp up extremely rapidly as soon as any variation occurs during sunset, storms, or almost any other weather phenomena. Is that a good 10k foot view? Plus the conventional sources are still required to maintain 100% of total grid need in conventional sources due to the periodic and unpredictable nature of “green” sources, which means there is always excess idled capacity far greater than a “normal” grid with no “sustainables” would be required to maintain, because conventional sources are always available when needed. Correct?

Long story short, every kW of solar or wind that’s added to grid capacity means the grid needs to maintain an equal number of kW of conventional sources to maintain output when “renewables” can’t provide their rated output or even close to it, right?

Yes, if you look at ERCOT, they have enough gas capacity to run everything, because during peak demand periods, they can't count on wind or solar to be present. However, in a market system like ERCOT, and in Alberta, the amount of reserve capacity for those peak events is lower than in jurisdictions with some level of vertical integration, like say Ontario, who has a larger alotment of surplus capacity that idles because it's publicly owned. This means that if you have some unexpected generator unavailability events like in ERCOT's case, with the deep freeze, or in Alberta's case when they had more units than anticipated offline for maintenance, that you can end up with rolling blackouts or even a complete grid black.

Wind, solar and batteries don't replace gas, they displace it. That is, they reduce gas generation, without a decrease in gas capacity. This is good, from an emissions perspective, but adds obvious cost, because you are effectively running and maintaining two parallel generating systems, as well as massively more transmission. So this also means you have a floor for emissions, as you will always end up running your gas capacity some amount.

In a grid with large amounts of clean baseload, like nuclear or hydro, solar, in moderation, can be quite complimentary, especially with a bit of storage for those ramp periods, preventing gas peakers from being fired up. Wind can also compliment large reservoir hydro, which can absorb its huge lulls in output.

The problem is the expectation that we should curtail non-emitting baseload plants to allow massive amounts of these intermittent sources on the grid, rather than being pragmatic and shooting for the most cost (and emissions) effective balance that prevents liberal use of curtailment.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Right next to all of the decommissioned turbine blades in the landfill, where they will stay for THOUSANDS of years.

Yes now isn't that just environmental!

 

[SupremePossum]

So tell me were do all of those solar panels go when they stop working?

Its always funny to me that those that for some reason bring politics into the energy debate seem to get stuck on "What happens when its end of life" while ignoring the fact a solar panel will produce "free" power for 20+ years, day after day, year after year without any emissions, and oil gets burned ONE TIME and is not only gone, but pollutes the environment

Solar, is without a doubt, very, very environmental.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Right next to all of the decommissioned turbine blades in the landfill, where they will stay for THOUSANDS of years.

Which is just down the road from the nuclear waste faculty.

 

[OVERKILL]

Which is just down the road from the nuclear waste faculty.

Aye, but the nuclear waste facility is paid for by the owners of the plants, as is all end of life activity (and it takes up much less room). I'd like to see end of life and disposal costs treated like they are for nuclear for every source, I think that's a lot more responsible than what we are doing now. There are arguments that wind turbine blades can be reprocessed instead of landfilled, but that costs money, same with the recycling of solar panels. These things end up in landfill because that's the cheapest option.

 

[OVERKILL]

Its always funny to me that those that for some reason bring politics into the energy debate seem to get stuck on "What happens when its end of life" while ignoring the fact a solar panel will produce "free" power for 20+ years, day after day, year after year without any emissions, and oil gets burned ONE TIME and is not only gone, but pollutes the environment

Solar, is without a doubt, very, very environmental.

Yes, while there is considerable evidence that solar lifecycle emissions are higher than the values often used for comparisons, even with a 100% coal powered production process and all the FF's used in transport and installation, they are still a considerable net benefit in terms of emissions reduction.

 

[MVAR]

This also has an affect on revenues (from the same thread):

2023, when solar had an ELCC of 11.7%:
View attachment 284009

2024 when solar had an ELCC of 3.9%:
View attachment 284010


As Xiao also points out, the value of batteries sees deflation as well, and has to compete against gas plants at higher durations. That is, the longer you aim for in terms of battery storage duration (4hrs is currently the standard), the cheaper it's going to be to run a gas plant, when gas is cheap (which it is). This kneecaps BES uptake:
View attachment 284011

Of course you can continue to throw subsidy schemes at these things, like is done in so many locations, but then that drives up the cost of energy, as consumers ultimately have to foot the bill for the total cost.

In CA, many PV stations are contracted to the state at $65-75/mWh even during negative pricing periods. Some are used as price offsets for the state run water project. The ending statement about cost to end users being higher is correct. Just look at the CPUC approved rates by the 3 large public utilities in CA. Municipalities were allowed more relaxed PPA’s but I believe those expire by 2030. Those rates will adjust in the up direction along with the public utilities.

It’s a more troublesome & complicated matter with the market operator & largest reliability entity in WECC having its board directly appointed by the CA governors office. If they don’t push CA’s agenda, they’re removed. If you’re just talking CA, that’s one thing but CAISO/RC West control several states markets (EIM) and reliability coordination functions.

 

[MVAR]

Aye, but the nuclear waste facility is paid for by the owners of the plants, as is all end of life activity (and it takes up much less room). I'd like to see end of life and disposal costs treated like they are for nuclear for every source, I think that's a lot more responsible than what we are doing now. There are arguments that wind turbine blades can be reprocessed instead of landfilled, but that costs money, same with the recycling of solar panels. These things end up in landfill because that's the cheapest option.

Legalize nuclear recycling, just saying.

 

[OVERKILL]

Legalize nuclear recycling, just saying.

Yes, even the old school PUREX process used by France would be a huge improvement over what the US is doing currently, which is just storing it.

 

[SupremePossum]

I don't understand why we don't have more nuclear, everyone always says "Oh well its going to take 5-10 years to build it!" Well yeah, but we've been saying that for years

If we didn't say that 10 years ago, and we just got on with building the darn thing, we'd have it now

 

[oil pan 4]

This thread will be right up @MVAR and @Shannow's alleys!

As I've mentioned in the past, the correlated production profile of wind and solar can be challenging for the grid. Wind, because it tends to disappear during peak demand periods, solar, because it's most productive in the middle of the day, which, as penetration increases, leads to larger and larger "ramp" periods in the morning and evening where it's exiting the picture and other generators need to ramp up to fill that void. This is the "duck curve" phenomena, where demand is pushed down during the middle of the day, so the curve resembles the shape of a duck.

An acronym we see used in powergen is ELCC: Effective Load Carrying Capacity (or Capability). That is, the ability of a source to meet demand. On a grid with no solar, its initial ELCC is quite high, because peak demand is typically during the heat of the day in the summer months. As you install more solar, it "eats its own lunch", driving down demand during this period, while failing to meet demand during the "new peaks" during the morning and evening. This drives down its ELCC.

View attachment 284008

I've said for years that the push for heatpumps is going to drive the peak demand to some time when you don't want it, like the middle of the night during the coldest nights of the winter and when solar power is dependably absent.

 

[4WD]

I don't understand why we don't have more nuclear, everyone always says "Oh well its going to take 5-10 years to build it!" Well yeah, but we've been saying that for years

If we didn't say that 10 years ago, and we just got on with building the darn thing, we'd have it now

STP got the permits to expand - has plenty of cooling water - but could not raise the money …
Meanwhile I see a small wind farm jumping one of their 3 transmission line runs … so that part is already there …

 

[MVAR]

I don't understand why we don't have more nuclear, everyone always says "Oh well its going to take 5-10 years to build it!" Well yeah, but we've been saying that for years

If we didn't say that 10 years ago, and we just got on with building the darn thing, we'd have it now

Hey, there’s plenty I don’t understand about why certain decisions are made as well & I operate part of the darn grid

There’s plenty that can be done to improve reliability. In all honesty we’re just not going in that direction, at least in CA. Certain energy sources are sold to the public as renewable, reliable & inexpensive. When looking at the whole picture it’s just not true. There’s been more than a few shifts in the last few years that have been nail biters.

I’m of the opinion now that several decision makers don’t understand the ramifications of their decisions. I’ve personally witnessed division heads decide to spend money on new software rather than update a failing DC system (the DC systems control switchyard breaker operation & comms). These same division heads didn’t understand the importance of the DC system even after it was explained to them.

There’s plenty of talented & intelligent people in utilities. Unfortunately, not all are allowed to create policy.

 

[OVERKILL]

STP got the permits to expand - has plenty of cooling water - but could not raise the money …
Meanwhile I see a small wind farm jumping one of their 3 transmission line runs … so that part is already there …

Yeah, hard to get that kind of commitment without some sort of state support, which wind and solar have both benefited from through various schemes.

 

[wwillson]

Legalize nuclear recycling, just saying.

It's legal in the US, but no company is willing to spend the billions to build a reprocessing plant just to have an executive order ban reprocessing again.