Excellent question Nathan. We address this as a load balancing cost that we attribute to wind and solar. We also look at using battery storage for this purpose but it is prohibitively expensive so we usually cost optimize by overbuilding and curtailing. Check out Section V on the LCOE of different power plants in this report.
Isaac, how do you incorporate reserves into your model, both online and offline reserves? All those on the left who analyze renewables to promote policy ignore not only the high cost but also the intense value of having readily available offline quick start resources to turn on when wind suddenly drops or a few clouds pass over a larger solar park (heaven forbid the two events coincide). Also, in the northern latitudes a freezing fog event can take out both wind and solar at once. What do you have left but on demand thermals... or hydro. Many promote batteries as the future, but they a duration limited and an extended event will quickly deplete that resource. Check out the ferc form 1 data on Plains End. It lies between Golden and Boulder in Colorado. It looks like it seldom is run. The value this plant provides is in the offline reserves category. Cheaper resources can be ramped up beyond a reserve margin if this plant is available offline. How does one quantify that value? It is real and it is huge and it is ignored by most who analyze and model power systems. The ISOs have a supplemental reserve product in addition to spinning reserve and energy. Colorado does not partake in an ISO currently. I'm convinced the ISO undervalue supplemental reserve anyway.
I will disagree with you and Robert in one area. NERC has the responsibility for the reliability of the national grid, you and Robert's statements do them and their staff a disservice. There is no NERC for natural gas
In the past, power plants were sized for their grids. No single plant was supposed to be more than 10% of the peak power on the grid. This was a rule of thumb, not a standard, but it was generally followed. The idea was that other power plants could supply replacement MW for any plant that had a problem and went offline.
However, solar and wind have the potential for common mode failure in a big way. When the sun goes down or a low-wind weather pattern moves into the area, a lot of power goes offline at once. If a grid is 50% solar, what happens at sunset? Sunset is a single event which affects all the panels, fairly quickly. Even though they are not connected to each other.
It would be better if we used the old rule of thumb and treated all solar in an area as one plant. People look at the duck curves as just an odd artifact of solar. I think they are a symptom of poor reliability design.
You're right, and NERC is great, but there's one exception to their authority when it comes to reliability and it's a big one: it "cannot order construction of additional generation or transmission or adopt enforceable standards that have that effect." It also bases reliability assessments on resource adequacy, which as we've seen, is not the best standard to base reliability on when renewables with exaggerated capacity values are included.
My response is " sort of". Using the reliability standards created by NERC , PJM is forcing Maryland utilities to build additional transmission before they can retire Brandon Shores. The State sued and the Federal Court found in favor of PJM. But as a rule NERC is fine based organization. They can warn you about capacity issues, then fine you for not addressing it when it appears. NERC can and has levied some eye watering fines. Regarding capacity on renewables, NERC works on proven capacity, not paper estimates. They are caught in that green squeeze where they have to proceed with caution or the greens will remove them.
What if a house or homestead could have its own power source where they can decide (in principle or moment-by-moment) how much to rely on carbon-based backup for wind/battery "normal" energy supply? That's what I'm aiming at building--a system like that.
Excellent question Nathan. We address this as a load balancing cost that we attribute to wind and solar. We also look at using battery storage for this purpose but it is prohibitively expensive so we usually cost optimize by overbuilding and curtailing. Check out Section V on the LCOE of different power plants in this report.
https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-High-Cost-of-100-Percent-Carbon-Free-Electricity-by-2040-in-Minnesota.pdf?v=1663000647&_gl=1*b5r49q*_ga*MjA5MTM5ODM3LjE3MDU2MjY2ODA.*_ga_03BRYTYNY0*MTcwNjM2ODg5Ny40LjEuMTcwNjM2ODk2Ni41MS4wLjA.
Good conversation, gents.
Isaac, how do you incorporate reserves into your model, both online and offline reserves? All those on the left who analyze renewables to promote policy ignore not only the high cost but also the intense value of having readily available offline quick start resources to turn on when wind suddenly drops or a few clouds pass over a larger solar park (heaven forbid the two events coincide). Also, in the northern latitudes a freezing fog event can take out both wind and solar at once. What do you have left but on demand thermals... or hydro. Many promote batteries as the future, but they a duration limited and an extended event will quickly deplete that resource. Check out the ferc form 1 data on Plains End. It lies between Golden and Boulder in Colorado. It looks like it seldom is run. The value this plant provides is in the offline reserves category. Cheaper resources can be ramped up beyond a reserve margin if this plant is available offline. How does one quantify that value? It is real and it is huge and it is ignored by most who analyze and model power systems. The ISOs have a supplemental reserve product in addition to spinning reserve and energy. Colorado does not partake in an ISO currently. I'm convinced the ISO undervalue supplemental reserve anyway.
I will disagree with you and Robert in one area. NERC has the responsibility for the reliability of the national grid, you and Robert's statements do them and their staff a disservice. There is no NERC for natural gas
Excellent work, guys.
Thanks, Stephen!
In the past, power plants were sized for their grids. No single plant was supposed to be more than 10% of the peak power on the grid. This was a rule of thumb, not a standard, but it was generally followed. The idea was that other power plants could supply replacement MW for any plant that had a problem and went offline.
However, solar and wind have the potential for common mode failure in a big way. When the sun goes down or a low-wind weather pattern moves into the area, a lot of power goes offline at once. If a grid is 50% solar, what happens at sunset? Sunset is a single event which affects all the panels, fairly quickly. Even though they are not connected to each other.
It would be better if we used the old rule of thumb and treated all solar in an area as one plant. People look at the duck curves as just an odd artifact of solar. I think they are a symptom of poor reliability design.
I suggest you and/or Robert go down and meet with one of the Senior Staff at NERC and let them explain how they work. https://www.nerc.com/AboutNERC/exec/Pages/default.aspx
You're right, and NERC is great, but there's one exception to their authority when it comes to reliability and it's a big one: it "cannot order construction of additional generation or transmission or adopt enforceable standards that have that effect." It also bases reliability assessments on resource adequacy, which as we've seen, is not the best standard to base reliability on when renewables with exaggerated capacity values are included.
My response is " sort of". Using the reliability standards created by NERC , PJM is forcing Maryland utilities to build additional transmission before they can retire Brandon Shores. The State sued and the Federal Court found in favor of PJM. But as a rule NERC is fine based organization. They can warn you about capacity issues, then fine you for not addressing it when it appears. NERC can and has levied some eye watering fines. Regarding capacity on renewables, NERC works on proven capacity, not paper estimates. They are caught in that green squeeze where they have to proceed with caution or the greens will remove them.
What if a house or homestead could have its own power source where they can decide (in principle or moment-by-moment) how much to rely on carbon-based backup for wind/battery "normal" energy supply? That's what I'm aiming at building--a system like that.