Solar happenings

[TheTalkingMule]

In January, renewables stood at 17.19% for the month. Based on the current trend, they will never drop below 20% again in the months going forward. Might even set the floor at 25%...

So you're saying 17.19% for this January and so much solar/wind will be installed in the following 11 months that another 8% of total production might be added? That seems a bit much considering you're measuring January. Even 3 more percentage points is an awful lot when looking at total production, right?

 

[RubberToe]

So you're saying 17.19% for this January and so much solar/wind will be installed in the following 11 months that another 8% of total production might be added? That seems a bit much considering you're measuring January. Even 3 more percentage points is an awful lot when looking at total production, right?

December or January is typically the lowest SPV month. Here is the data from January 2016 till now for renewable power as a % of total power production:

01-16: 15.59% , 01-17: 17.19%
02-16: 19.04% , 02-17: 20.02% (rained all month, thankfully)
03-16: 24.04% , 03-17: 25.56%
04-16: 25.62%
05-16: 27.12%
06-16: 23.93%
07-16: 23.10%
08-16: 21.75%
09-16: 20.75%
10-16: 20.19%
11-16: 17.76%
12-16: 17.05%

The key takeaway here is the rate at which SPV is growing. The SPV monthly increases (total power) year over year are typically in the 30-50% range. January had 1,117,467MWh SPV of 18,655,018MWh total power, or 5.99% of the total power. If the 1,117,467 goes up by say 30% next year to 1,452,707, and total power is flat (which it has been), and other renewables also stay flat (unlikely), then you get something like 3,542,237, or 18.98% renewable.

So if you add in a bit more wind (which I don't track separately), you get up to my posited 20% floor for renewables. Looking at the numbers now in front of me, I take back the 25% renewable floor, but still stand by the 20% floor.

Here is the SPV total power graph:

It's the continuation of this SPV production increase (primarily) that gets us to 50% renewable by 2030. Also note that the graph does not include residential SPV power. Which could be why total power is flat in spite of increasing population. Just speculating on that...

RT

 

[Ampster]

I am concerned about curtailment in California. I am ready to charge my car and turn on my electric water heater to avoid that. I hope the CEC continues to mandate more battery storage and gets the IOUs to send me the signal so I can help prevent further curtailment. It could be that simple on an agregate basis.

 

[Ulmo]

Was there some weather in California yesterday and today I did not know about? That could explain this, but I'm somewhat suspicious nevertheless.

I'm showing that while Monday had low sun at my home, Tuesday-Thursday had heavy sun, and I made quite a bit of electricity. I usually experience commonalities between what my system makes and what the utility level solar farms make.

California's solar farms are partially tracked by CAISO. California ISO - Todays Outlook shows curtailment link. The graphs show today (and now that I look at them, yesterday) had sharp drops in solar and wind during pretty high wind periods that suggest not all of the sun and wind energy was used, and that there may have been heavy curtailment. It is supposed to be updated every day, but Tuesday and Wednesday are mysteriously missing. I suspect that they might be trying to fudge the numbers to cover up how much curtailment has been going on this week.

Curtailment, according to mblake's last linked article, can be strategically used as reserves in small amounts, but bigger amounts of curtailment are more about giving more citizen money to fossil fuel companies, or in some instances, bad planning in grid expansions, but as grid expansions are continuing to fix those errors, that becomes less and less likely. I suspect a combination of all of those things. But if it's a cover up, then I suspect more of the corrupt versions than the non-corrupt versions.

I was right (from the signatures in the graphs): On March 23, 2017, there was ~1.4% of our energy that could have been supplied by wind & solar that instead was supplied by fossil fuels & imports (mixed). The numbers look really big when I compare them to my personal use (what was curtailed from solar and wind in one day for CAISO is enough to power my car for 5 million miles uphill on a cold night with a heavy headwind and heavy rain driving fast, or a Model X pulling a trailer with almost all those problems, or I could pay for one quarter ($217K) the price of an average home where I live if I sold it all at $0.05/kWh ($434K) and paid 50% taxes), but when it's billed as "only 1.4%", it seems less. Specifically, there was ~8.6GWh of economic solar and wind curtailment in California, on a day when at least 150GWh if not 300GWh (I don't see the imports breakdown) was dirty fuel. So, whatever contracts CAISO, California, PG&E, and the other utility concerns have with various providers, they are intentionally polluting and not paying bills for wind and solar in order to make certain that the bills are paid to polluters instead.

The breakdowns show the following economic curtailments on March 23, 2017 for CAISO:

• Solar 7,414 MWh (7.4GWh)
• Wind 1,275 MWh (~1.3GWh)

That adds up to 8,689MWh (~8.6GWh) curtailment of utility solar and wind, or 5.8% of available utility solar & wind energy for the day curtailed.

That day, of energy managed by CAISO, 25% was supplied by utility supply solar & wind, but without the curtailment, 26.5% could have been supplied by solar & wind.

While the reports say it wasn't for reserves, it might have been for reserves and economic at the same time, and that might have been hidden, or there may be a technicality that I do not know about.

I also do not know what type of work is going on medium and long term.

At least I can say that it was only 5.8% waste, rather than some greater number. Perhaps that's a success story. I don't know.

Disclaimer: This is only the curtailment that CAISO knows about. They may have a good view into this.

Anyway, things are getting better generally. Let's just make sure they keep getting better. We have a long way to go.

http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20170323_DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20170323_DailyRenewablesWatch.txt
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Wind_SolarReal-TimeDispatchCurtailmentReportMar23_2017.pdf

It bears repeating that I'm only talking about that visible at CAISO, and doesn't include smaller installations on the customer side of the meter, which are estimated to be something like 40%-50% of the utility amount, but no one publicly knows.

This last week has had a half-steady amount of curtailment of this type in about the same amounts for a while now, so this seems like something that can get worked on:

 

[wws]

One odd thing is that in Ca, 'large hydro' is not considered part of the 'renewable' calculation. This makes no sense. But politics are politics, so from a political point of view it doesn't have to make sense.

It seems clear that as solar becomes even more pervasive, time-of-use rates should favor using power during the day - rather than at night.

 

[Ulmo]

One odd thing is that in Ca, 'large hydro' is not considered part of the 'renewable' calculation. This makes no sense. But politics are politics, so from a political point of view it doesn't have to make sense.

It seems clear that as solar becomes even more pervasive, time-of-use rates should favor using power during the day - rather than at night.

I always consider nuclear and hydroelectric clean energy. The politicians are stupid and don't include those things but do include some very dirty fuels in their "renewables" mantra. The net effect currently is what we all accept: more solar photovoltaic panels, thus getting closer to clean energy.

In the future when we start having enough solar PV to start shutting off other producers, though, I would hate for politicians to use that as an excuse to shut down ultra-clean hydroelectric and very clean nuclear instead of ultra-dirty oil, gas, and coal.

The communists made a secret deal with PG&E to shut down our nuclear power, in exchange for a bunch of money from the ratepayers, and PG&E said they are going to install at least some solar power just to offset that, but I don't know how much. During discussions, they mentioned they'd have to install way more solar per watt to make up for the loss of the nuclear power plant per watt due to duty cycles of sun vs nuclear. If they end up installing enough to cover the entire output of the nuclear plant, and we find a way to offset our use toward the ample sunlight hours (battery, variable use, electric cars charging at work, etc.), then this will end up being almost a net wash in terms of clean energy, except for the energy used to build and install the solar panels and to take down the nuclear power plant.

They also want to remove all the dams. They want to remove Hetch Hetchy and all of the other dams up there. PG&E claims that they can create just as much electricity in river flows as they can with dams, but (a) is that true and (b) will they?

There is definitely a huge potential for us to get to 50% "renewables" in California, and for Gerry Brown to declare victory, tear out all the clean energy that was installed half a century to a century ago, actually have more pollution than before we started the solar panel era, and declare victory. Evil is pulling the strings of the local politicians, so we have to be against that constantly to make certain they don't do crap like that.

 

[MitchMitch]

Wasn't sure if this warranted a new thread. . .

Hope I'm not stepping on AP toes with the link.

Sign of the times? Solar panels power Kentucky Coal Museum

Associated Press

 

[ggies07]

India: Renewables surpass other energy sources in capacity addition in FY17

Capacity addition from renewable energy sources surpassed conventional sources for the first time in financial year 2017 as India added 12.5 gigawatt (GW) of renewable energy capacity compared to 10.2GW from conventional sources of fuel.

 

[Dave EV]

I always consider nuclear and hydroelectric clean energy.

Nuclear is "clean" until you have a disaster or have to deal with the waste (so far everyone is just kicking the can down the road). Large hydro is only "clean" if you ignore the effects of damming large rivers and the changes to habitats.

but do include some very dirty fuels in their "renewables" mantra.

Examples?

The communists

Really?

I don't disagree that we should extend the life of existing nuclear and large hydro as long as reasonably possible. But blaming politicians is pointing fingers in the wrong direction. You should be looking at the CPUC and the utilities themselves. I am highly disappointed that San Onofre was mothballed decades too early - and that the ratepayers are being forced to pay for SDG&E's, SCE's and Mitsubishi's gross negligence.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Saw an EnegySage post on Facebook today implying solar installs near Tuscon Arizona were "$5000 less than national averages!" So I click on it expecting to see maybe $2.75/W and still not be impressed. Their average price point.....$3.05/W

How is that anything to celebrate nearly halfway through 2017? Hardware+labor+permit is maybe $1.50/W on these installs and we're doing cartwheels over paying more than double that?

 

[RubberToe]

Cross posting this here, since it's possible that something like this (only reversed) might happen in California...

New York utility ConEdison paying customers $0.05 per kWh to charge off peak:

An electric utility will pay EV owners 5 cent per kWh of charging during off-peak hours

When reading through the comments, someone suggested that in California, the utilities might do the same thing, but the time would be during peak solar generation, so they don't have to curtail solar production. Ties into the recent curtailment discussion.

RT

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I always consider nuclear and hydroelectric clean energy. The politicians are stupid and don't include those things but do include some very dirty fuels in their "renewables" mantra. The net effect currently is what we all accept: more solar photovoltaic panels, thus getting closer to clean energy.

In the future when we start having enough solar PV to start shutting off other producers, though, I would hate for politicians to use that as an excuse to shut down ultra-clean hydroelectric and very clean nuclear instead of ultra-dirty oil, gas, and coal.

The communists made a secret deal with PG&E to shut down our nuclear power, in exchange for a bunch of money from the ratepayers, and PG&E said they are going to install at least some solar power just to offset that, but I don't know how much. During discussions, they mentioned they'd have to install way more solar per watt to make up for the loss of the nuclear power plant per watt due to duty cycles of sun vs nuclear. If they end up installing enough to cover the entire output of the nuclear plant, and we find a way to offset our use toward the ample sunlight hours (battery, variable use, electric cars charging at work, etc.), then this will end up being almost a net wash in terms of clean energy, except for the energy used to build and install the solar panels and to take down the nuclear power plant.

They also want to remove all the dams. They want to remove Hetch Hetchy and all of the other dams up there. PG&E claims that they can create just as much electricity in river flows as they can with dams, but (a) is that true and (b) will they?

There is definitely a huge potential for us to get to 50% "renewables" in California, and for Gerry Brown to declare victory, tear out all the clean energy that was installed half a century to a century ago, actually have more pollution than before we started the solar panel era, and declare victory. Evil is pulling the strings of the local politicians, so we have to be against that constantly to make certain they don't do crap like that.

We've made the unfortunate "decision" to build most of our nuclear plants on or near faults, which is more or less all of California. We could continue to operate them, but that's a known risk. I imagine something similar applies to dams because of increased variability in seasonal rainfall, but that's likely associated with climate change, which is pretty ironic if it's accurate.

 

[abasile]

Cross posting this here, since it's possible that something like this (only reversed) might happen in California...

New York utility ConEdison paying customers $0.05 per kWh to charge off peak:

An electric utility will pay EV owners 5 cent per kWh of charging during off-peak hours

When reading through the comments, someone suggested that in California, the utilities might do the same thing, but the time would be during peak solar generation, so they don't have to curtail solar production. Ties into the recent curtailment discussion.

For that to happen, I think the California utilities would need to replace the current, fixed TOU rates with "market based" rates that fluctuate over the course of each day based on grid status (supply and demand, etc.). Ultimately, I think this is the right direction to head in. While the predictability of having TOU "super off peak" rates from 10PM - 8AM (as is the case for me) is nice, for example, it doesn't necessarily reflect true costs.

 

[Merrill]

Cross posting this here, since it's possible that something like this (only reversed) might happen in California...

New York utility ConEdison paying customers $0.05 per kWh to charge off peak:

An electric utility will pay EV owners 5 cent per kWh of charging during off-peak hours

When reading through the comments, someone suggested that in California, the utilities might do the same thing, but the time would be during peak solar generation, so they don't have to curtail solar production. Ties into the recent curtailment discussion.

RT

PG&E pay customers for charging their EV's, they are doing the opposite and the same with solar customers. Just looking to add to their billions in profit.

 

[swaltner]

Figure this is probably the best thread for this news item, doesn't necessarily deserve it's own thread. My brother that lives in the Palm Beach area texted this news article to me this morning.

South Miami is Sunshine State’s only city to require residential solar-energy systems

The installation of solar collectors applies only to new homes being constructed and those that are renovated at or above 75 percent of their current value.

Other details of interest would be:

• is there a specified minimum size of the solar system or would a single solar panel satisfy the requirement
• once you're forcing everyone to install solar, have they implemented a plan to handle grid stability in the long term?
• have they been able to block the power company from enacting punitive tariffs on the people that are forced to install solar (high per month grid fees that only apply to solar users like have been enacted in some states)?

This is an interesting development...

 

[TheTalkingMule]

These headlines do not bode well for US solar installations as a 70ish cent price floor in panels is double the current price from China.

Not bad if you own a huge panel factory in Buffalo I guess.

Trump reportedly demands China action: 'I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me some tariffs'

 

[Sharkbait]

Nothing new. You may recall that tariffs on solar panels increased under the Obama administration. The Chinese then started to send their solar part-pieces to the US west coast (Oregon I think) and Canada for final assembly. I suppose that meant more jobs for North America and maybe even more in the future.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

It's my understanding that current panel tariffs are so easy to circumvent they might as well not exist. The plan now is to make it impossible to bring in module components below a panel price floor of 78 cent which is about double today's lowest prices from China.