Solar and Wind Power Fees for Oklahomans

[nathanm]

Solar/Wind is unreliable (to quote an OKC paper) power. Just because it's cloudy or calm, it doesn't make us use 30% less power. All the solar and wind plants do is let some traditional burners idle. The conventional producers still have to be capable of providing 24/7 capacity to every home and business.

That's what the naysayers say. Never mind that traditional power plants go offline at inopportune moments as well, sometimes leading to blackouts, sometimes only getting us sky-high spot rates. It's not as if there aren't other countries (and states, for that matter) that generate a significant percentage of their electricity with wind and solar. They somehow figure it out. We can, too.

[sgrizzle]

That's what the naysayers say. Never mind that traditional power plants go offline at inopportune moments as well, sometimes leading to blackouts, sometimes only getting us sky-high spot rates. It's not as if there aren't other countries (and states, for that matter) that generate a significant percentage of their electricity with wind and solar. They somehow figure it out. We can, too.

Utility companies are required by law to maintain certain reliability, and maintain access to capacity above need in case a plant goes down. Those laws are even more strict in recent years due to the new york thing (which was a wire issue, not a generating issue) When was the last time we had a true blackout in Oklahoma?

Those countries that use more wind and solar most likely just switch to fossil fuels or nuclear when the wind/sun are not providing enough power. Batteries to store that capacity are not really feasible at this point.

[nathanm]

Batteries to store that capacity are not really feasible at this point.

Thankfully, there are other means of storage. Pumped hydroelectric, for example, which GRDA uses already. Utility scale solar thermal is also often good for at least a couple of hours without sun. But yes, the gas turbines that utilities have already been building (thus we are already paying for) are really good at following the variations in solar and wind. Yet more reason why it's silly to charge fees to residential distributed generators at present.

[patric]

Utility companies are required by law to maintain certain reliability, and maintain access to capacity above need in case a plant goes down. Those laws are even more strict in recent years due to the new york thing (which was a wire issue, not a generating issue) When was the last time we had a true blackout in Oklahoma?

Wires strung from pole to pole are unreliable in tornado alley, and the two weeks we were without power in an ice storm, well...
Truth is, reliability hasnt been the deal-breaker, historically.

[sgrizzle]

But yes, the gas turbines that utilities have already been building (thus we are already paying for) are really good at following the variations in solar and wind. Yet more reason why it's silly to charge fees to residential distributed generators at present.

I'm not aware of any gas turbine plants built by a utility in the last two decades, at least not anywhere around here.

[Red Arrow]

There is also the loss in converting heat into rotational energy and then into electricity, which is fixed in any given plant barring swapping out the boiler or heat exchanger.

When I took some courses at TU a long time ago, a 40% efficiency of fossil fuel BTU to KW-hr of electricity at the generating station was really good.  A large steam plant could maybe get there.  I believe gas turbine plants used for peaking were significantly less efficient.  The high voltage transmission lines were reasonably efficient, local lower voltages not so much.

Sooooo....
The question is:
How many mpg would a typical 5 passenger gasoline (or maybe diesel or CNG) engine automobile need to get to equal the energy efficiency of an equal size electric only automobile charged at a residence with electricity from a fossil fuel electric plant?  We are only talking energy here, not dollars.  We are saving the world at any cost.  Account for such things as production and transportation of the electricity/fuel to the final distribution point of electricity in the home to charge the car battery and gasoline (diesel/CNG) at the gas station to fill the tank. Lots of stuff to consider.  State your assumptions.

I don't have the answer.  Some of you guys that have too much time on your hands can work on it.

[AquaMan]

But then the oil industry may charge a fee to each electric car owner who uses his own solar generator to recharge his vehicle to cover their cost of providing distribution of their now unused product. You know, since they are no longer contributing to that distribution system and basically free loading till they need to fire up the fossil fuel second car. Then the government can step in and add fees since the roadways are built and maintained by fuel taxes which the new slacker population is no longer buying.

This new philosophy of identifying energy slackers has great potential.

[TeeDub]

Wires strung from pole to pole are unreliable in tornado alley, and the two weeks we were without power in an ice storm, well...
Truth is, reliability hasnt been the deal-breaker, historically.

I think my aerial cables have let me down about 5 days worth in the last 15 years.   (4 days of it was the ice storm of 2007.)   While they obviously are more prone to issues than buried lines, I wouldn't call them "unreliable."

[TeeDub]

When I took some courses at TU a long time ago, a 40% efficiency of fossil fuel BTU to KW-hr of electricity at the generating station was really good.  A large steam plant could maybe get there.  I believe gas turbine plants used for peaking were significantly less efficient.  The high voltage transmission lines were reasonably efficient, local lower voltages not so much.

Sooooo....
The question is:
How many mpg would a typical 5 passenger gasoline (or maybe diesel or CNG) engine automobile need to get to equal the energy efficiency of an equal size electric only automobile charged at a residence with electricity from a fossil fuel electric plant?  We are only talking energy here, not dollars.  We are saving the world at any cost.  Account for such things as production and transportation of the electricity/fuel to the final distribution point of electricity in the home to charge the car battery and gasoline (diesel/CNG) at the gas station to fill the tank. Lots of stuff to consider.  State your assumptions.

I don't have the answer.  Some of you guys that have too much time on your hands can work on it.

I think what you are looking for is in here.   (Maybe table 1.4?)
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

[nathanm]

I'm not aware of any gas turbine plants built by a utility in the last two decades, at least not anywhere around here.

AEP built one about a hundred miles from here less than 5 years ago.

[sgrizzle]

AEP built one about a hundred miles from here less than 5 years ago.

PSO (AEP) hasn't built a power plant since the 70's

Here is a list of their plants:
https://www.psoklahoma.com/global/utilities/lib/docs/factsheets/PSOFactSheet2014.pdf

[Conan71]

I'm not aware of any gas turbine plants built by a utility in the last two decades, at least not anywhere around here.

Cal-Pine in the Mid-America Industrial Park about three or four miles north of the GRDA coal plant off 412.  Not sure if Cal-Pine still owns it or not, but it's there and it's been in the last 10-15 years.  More of a co-gen size than one that can light 1mm homes.

[sgrizzle]

Cal-Pine in the Mid-America Industrial Park about three or four miles north of the GRDA coal plant off 412.  Not sure if Cal-Pine still owns it or not, but it's there and it's been in the last 10-15 years.  More of a co-gen size than one that can light 1mm homes.

That appears to be owned by Siemens, and was not built by any local utilities.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The resistance loss is not a flat amount. Resistance in a particular conductor (and thus the amount of energy dissipated as heat) is related to the amperage carried and the length of the wire. A foot of wire has a thousandth the resistance of a thousand feet of the same wire at the same voltage and amperage, thus a thousandth of the loss. (ignoring the effects of capacitance, anyway) Reducing the average transmission distance is the easiest way to reduce resistive losses, but higher voltage transmission helps by reducing the amperage carried by the wire, as does switching to HVDC, since DC isn't subject to the skin effect.

There is also the loss in converting heat into rotational energy and then into electricity, which is fixed in any given plant barring swapping out the boiler or heat exchanger.

Ok...yeah, resistance is proportional to distance - what I am getting at is the economic analysis of the power plant design leads to a 30% throw away to keep the size of the wires to the minimum.  If they were to build a plant half the distance, the cost of keeping the larger wire from the longer distant plant would be a "value engineering" opportunity - they would cut the size to "get by", thereby maintaining the approx 30% losses.


Conversion cost is massive - burning coal/gas to convert to electricity ends up with probably something in the neighborhood of 15 to 25% of the initial heat content of the fuel into used energy - that counts lighting, motors, transmission lines, etc.  Add a variable frequency drive (VFD) to your motors and it increases the motor/work efficiency dramatically - from 50 - 60% to 85 - 95%!!!  Huge increase in efficiency.  Same basic concept for fluorescent lighting - with the electronic ballasts, huge increase in efficiency - that's why a 4ft tube light uses 32 watts with electronic ballast compared to old magnetic ballast at 40 watts for the same light output.  I think those are called T-8... rather than the old T-12.


HVDC is a niche and likely to stay that way for a long time....cheap conductors are just too 'cost effective' with 3 ph AC.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That's what the naysayers say. Never mind that traditional power plants go offline at inopportune moments as well, sometimes leading to blackouts, sometimes only getting us sky-high spot rates. It's not as if there aren't other countries (and states, for that matter) that generate a significant percentage of their electricity with wind and solar. They somehow figure it out. We can, too.

Germany for example - their stated goal is 30% solar and wind by 2015.  Last time I looked was a couple years ago, and they were well along that path. 

Nathann, I know YOU understand this - it is for others;
The naysayers always make some lame BS nonsense about how solar and wind won't work in the dark or when the wind isn't blowing....  So what?  We don't depend on any single point supply as it is.  This state has both natural gas and coal.  Other states add nuke into the mix.  NONE of them is enough to do it all.  What wind and solar bring to the table are another VERY viable, VERY competitive, VERY cost effective tool to the toolbox.  It further distributes the generation capacity, so no one or two have to shoulder the load alone.   Anyone who has ever designed and tried to built anything in more that a handful of units has dealt with the issues of "single point of supply" for a critical item, or set of items.  If they have NOT dealt with it, they are either lying, incompetent, or haven't been burned by it yet, which is really the second - incompetent!