Jump to content

Grid monitor warns of U.S. blackouts in ‘sobering report’


Recommended Posts

In a report issued by the NERC, they warn of potential blackouts this summer in several parts of the U.S.. 

 

Let's start with the NERC. Who are they? They are the 'watchdog' for the power grid in the U.S.:

Quote

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and security of the grid. NERC develops and enforces Reliability Standards; annually assesses seasonal and long‐term reliability; monitors the bulk power system through system awareness; and educates, trains, and certifies industry personnel. NERC’s area of responsibility spans the continental United States, Canada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Mexico. NERC is the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) for North America, subject to oversight by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and governmental authorities in Canada. NERC's jurisdiction includes users, owners, and operators of the bulk power system, which serves nearly 400 million people.

 

Now to their warning:

Quote

The central and upper Midwest, Texas and Southern California face an increased risk of power outages this summer from extreme heat, wildfires and extended drought, the nation’s grid monitor warned yesterday.

In a dire new assessment, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) described regions of the country pushed closer than ever toward energy emergencies by a combination of climate impacts and a transition from traditional fossil fuel generators to carbon-free renewable power.

John Moura, director of reliability assessment and performance analysis at NERC, said during a media briefing “It’s a very sobering report. It’s clear the risks are spreading."

 

The specifics:

Quote

Highlighting the most serious regional threats, the report said:

  • The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), grid manager and energy market operator in the central Midwest, “faces a capacity shortfall in its North and Central areas, resulting in high risk of energy emergencies during peak summer conditions.”

    “More extreme temperatures, higher generation outages, or low wind conditions expose the MISO North and Central areas to higher risk of temporary operator-initiated load shedding to maintain system reliability,” the report said of the MISO region, which runs from Canada’s Manitoba province to Louisiana.

  • “An elevated risk of energy emergencies persists” across the West this summer “as dry hydrological conditions threaten the availability of hydroelectric energy for transfer.” Assuming that nearly 3,400 megawatts of new resources are available as scheduled this summer, California should be able to meet peak power demands this summer, the report said. But a repeat of the heat dome that scorched the entire West in 2019 could threaten the availability of imported power that the state depends on, causing energy emergencies.
  • In Texas, a “combination of extreme peak demand, low wind, and high outage rates from thermal generators could require system operators to use emergency procedures, up to and including temporary manual load shedding.” Delays in completing new transmission lines now underway “may contribute to localized reliability concerns.”
  • Drought conditions in the Missouri River Basin may affect operations of gas, coal or nuclear plants in the Southwest Power Pool that rely on the river for cooling water supplies, the report said.
  • Some coal-fired power plant owners are having a hard time arranging fuel deliveries because of mine closings, rail shipping interruptions and increased coal exports, it added.
  • On top of all of this, NERC reported an increased danger of potential Russian cyberattacks on the nation’s power systems in retaliation for U.S. support for Ukraine in the current conflict.

 

Meanwhile in California: 

Quote

In Sacramento, officials said California’s grid could face a potential shortfall of roughly 1,700 megawatts, which would affect the power supply of between 1 million and 4 million people this summer. That number would likely be exacerbated by an additional shortfall of 5,000 megawatts in the case of extreme heat and further fire damage to existing power lines.

Ram Rajagopal, an associate professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University, who authored a recent study looking at the strain electric vehicle adoption is expected to place on the power grid: "Let’s say we were to have a substantial number of [electric] vehicles charging at home as everybody dreams, today’s grid may not be able to support it. It all boils down to: Are you charging during the time solar power is on?”

Rajagopal says California's experience is exposing some critical gaps that are likely to strain the power grid in the race to net-zero, especially in the transportation sector, where the acceleration of electric vehicle adoption is already underway.

“Business as usual will no longer be the case,” he said. “I really believe we need to balance our need for reliability and our desire for a clean grid.”

 

Get ready for government control of your charging: 

Quote

Rajagopal’s team of researchers at Stanford developed a model framework to help utility companies around the world calculate charging patterns to better manage electricity demand. In California, it found that peak charging demand would more than double by 2030 if EV owners opted to charge in the evening at home.

“The use of an electric vehicle is like adding one or two air conditioners to your residence in terms of its energy increase,” Mike Jacobs, Senior Energy Analyst at Union of Concerned Scientists, told Yahoo Finance. “So when the local utility engineer looks at this, he thinks of that air conditioning in the afternoon and the electric vehicle coming home at the same time.”

Jacobs said the transition will mark a dramatic adjustment in behavior. Utility companies and service operators, who have long grown accustomed to “a predictable shape” and schedule in energy usage, will be forced to more actively manage the grid to avoid surges. Likewise, drivers will be forced to adapt to new charging times, with some being asked to plug in at work during the day, while others commit to set hours at night to ensure even distribution of energy capacity. Technology that allows the grid and cars to communicate directly is likely to follow, he said.

 

It would appear that our government(s) have much more work to do to support growing EV sales and their effect on the grid.

Edited by Harley Lover
https://www.eenews.net/articles/grid-monitor-warns-of-u-s-blackouts-in-sobering-report/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/californias-electrical-grid-has-an-ev-problem/ar-AAXsHfT?li=BBnb7Kz
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been stating this since day one...here in So cal we have constant blackouts in summer when every Thomas Richard and Harold turns their A/c on at once...and that's even WITH everyone going solar...Now ram electrics down everyones throats ( and make them more enticing by screwing up oil supply, and doubling gas prices...well that's Putins fault right? ) Thats additional draw on an already depleted grid on top of that and VOILA! sheer mayhem...Classic Cart leading the Horse political BS. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is in the Ford Motor Company discussion forum, it's worth mentioning that Ford and Siemens developed the first bidirectional EVSE for retail customers, Ford Charging Station Pro. It enables F-150 Lightning's Intelligent Backup Power capability to work seamlessly in a residential setting during a power outage. In the future, software updates for Ford Charging Station Pro will allow more interaction with the grid and active management by utility companies to improve overall grid resiliency. Siemens Collaborates with Ford on Customized Electric Vehicle Charger | Siemens US Press Releases: Smart Infrastructure | Siemens USA

 

Ford%20Lightning%20Wall%20Box%20Charger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

Since this is in the Ford Motor Company discussion forum, it's worth mentioning that Ford and Siemens developed the first bidirectional EVSE for retail customers, Ford Charging Station Pro. It enables F-150 Lightning's Intelligent Backup Power capability to work seamlessly in a residential setting during a power outage. In the future, software updates for Ford Charging Station Pro will allow more interaction with the grid and active management by utility companies to improve overall grid resiliency. Siemens Collaborates with Ford on Customized Electric Vehicle Charger | Siemens US Press Releases: Smart Infrastructure | Siemens USA

 

Ford%20Lightning%20Wall%20Box%20Charger.

MOOT POINT..your giving back a percentage of what you've already taken.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Deanh said:

MOOT POINT..your giving back a percentage of what you've already taken.....

I can see that helping during peak loading, feeding your own house means avoiding load shedding but yes, you’re absolutely correct, that this does nothing to increase power generation during peak load. Also, using your own vehicles battery like that means shortening life as well as forcing all charging into off peak - we know that EV owners will want to charge their vehicles when it’s needed, so away from home, all those fast charge locations are going to increase in number and grid load.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

I can see that helping during peak loading, feeding your own house means avoiding load shedding but yes, you’re absolutely correct, that this does nothing to increase power generation during peak load. Also, using your own vehicles battery like that means shortening life as well as forcing all charging into off peak - we know that EV owners will want to charge their vehicles when it’s needed, so away from home, all those fast charge locations are going to increase in number and grid load.

I think its great for those that own the Truck if they have a blackout...but the counter is it just demands longer charging once the power comes back up....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Deanh said:

I think its great for those that own the Truck if they have a blackout...but the counter is it just demands longer charging once the power comes back up....

That’s true, I’m concerned that governments are now encouraging  to the point of relying on home owners to buy solar and battery storage   On a massive scale so they can avoid major spend on green infrastructure themselves. Lots of states and countries are going to face the same issues you do in California….maybe things have to get really crap before governments get booted out and we see a more sensible, pragmatic approach to power supply…..

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That same Stanford report also stated that it would take $2k-$6k in grid improvements for each EV added to the fleet.  It isn’t going to be cheap.  We still don’t know what the environmental impact of all those batteries and solar panels is.  As of now, the solar panels that can’t be salvaged and used at a lower efficiency are ground up and buried in a landfill.  Similar for the lithium ion batteries.  Very few are recycled.  Seems government has gotten the cart in front of the horse.

 

We might be better of getting businesses to offer covered parking under solar panels to charge during peak sunlight and then discharge into the grid in the early evening if needed.  At any rate energy is lost every step of the way.

 

We need more nuclear power plants to cover the base load.  Instead, they are being shut down.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, slemke said:

That same Stanford report also stated that it would take $2k-$6k in grid improvements for each EV added to the fleet.  It isn’t going to be cheap.  We still don’t know what the environmental impact of all those batteries and solar panels is.  As of now, the solar panels that can’t be salvaged and used at a lower efficiency are ground up and buried in a landfill.  Similar for the lithium ion batteries.  Very few are recycled.  Seems government has gotten the cart in front of the horse.

 

We might be better of getting businesses to offer covered parking under solar panels to charge during peak sunlight and then discharge into the grid in the early evening if needed.  At any rate energy is lost every step of the way.

 

We need more nuclear power plants to cover the base load.  Instead, they are being shut down.

Possibly the smaller more manageable reactors that run on thorium like the Canadian CANDU reactor which have a much safer process and don’t produce things like plutonium waste….Something that would give the planet a 50 year break from CO2 increases. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Deanh said:

Ive been stating this since day one...here in So cal we have constant blackouts in summer when every Thomas Richard and Harold turns their A/c on at once...and that's even WITH everyone going solar...Now ram electrics down everyones throats ( and make them more enticing by screwing up oil supply, and doubling gas prices...well that's Putins fault right? ) Thats additional draw on an already depleted grid on top of that and VOILA! sheer mayhem...Classic Cart leading the Horse political BS. 

There, there, no need to worry.  Don't ,you know that the electricity for the EVs will come from pixie dust and unicorn farts??

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jpd80 said:

That’s true, I’m concerned that governments are now encouraging  to the point of relying on home owners to buy solar and battery storage   On a massive scale so they can avoid major spend on green infrastructure themselves. Lots of states and countries are going to face the same issues you do in California….maybe things have to get really crap before governments get booted out and we see a more sensible, pragmatic approach to power supply…..

I think you have to keep in mind that politicians give a rat's ass about the environment as they are living in their mansions and traveling via carbon-spewing private jets and Suburbans,  The care they have about the environment only reaches to the point where they can get a vote.  If anything this administration's energy policies have done is to start turning people against the "New Green Deal" becasue they are starting to see the fraud and lies that are part of it.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballfan said:

I think you have to keep in mind that politicians give a rat's ass about the environment as they are living in their mansions and traveling via carbon-spewing private jets and Suburbans,  The care they have about the environment only reaches to the point where they can get a vote.  If anything this administration's energy policies have done is to start turning people against the "New Green Deal" becasue they are starting to see the fraud and lies that are part of it.

I take a less accusative view and just think they’re dumb and get lead around by lobbyists looking to milk as much government money for projects as they can. Now I wouldn’t mind if the money was well targeted but from what I see, much of it misses important marks like adding power generation and and distribution grid upgrades, so it seems like projects are to benefit everyone except voters.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if homes or public charging stations for EVs will  have solar panels backed up by large battery storage or capacitors to keep them off of grid power. Or maybe using with the Ford Lightning bidirectional tech,  they could steal power from fully charged vehicles. Problem solved! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JHForman812 said:

we screwed up by not building new nuclear power stations along with wind and solar.  Nuclear is our best bet and we arent pursuing it !! 

 

Just wait for a Russian cruise missile to hit a Ukranian nuclear plant and spread deadly radiation throughout Europe. Probably the only reason they haven't is luck and winds blowing from west to east most of the time. Chernobyl is still in a very dangerous state with Russians still shooting cruise missiles all over Ukraine. And just watched the 3 Mile Island documentary on Netflix. Scary shit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Just wait for a Russian cruise missile to hit a Ukranian nuclear plant and spread deadly radiation throughout Europe. Probably the only reason they haven't is luck and winds blowing from west to east most of the time. Chernobyl is still in a very dangerous state with Russians still shooting cruise missiles all over Ukraine. And just watched the 3 Mile Island documentary on Netflix. Scary shit.

But nothing was released from 3 Mile Island.  The safety systems work and averted disaster.  Technology has improved dramatically since 1979.  If someone is firing cruise misses at the continental US, we’ve got bigger problems.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Just wait for a Russian cruise missile to hit a Ukranian nuclear plant and spread deadly radiation throughout Europe. Probably the only reason they haven't is luck and winds blowing from west to east most of the time. Chernobyl is still in a very dangerous state with Russians still shooting cruise missiles all over Ukraine. And just watched the 3 Mile Island documentary on Netflix. Scary shit.

Russian forces were actually firing at Chernobyl in the early stages, troops dug trenches around the site and rolling around in the dirt where contamination was bad, those people were evacuated for treatment in Russia for severe radiation exposure.

 

Early Soviet reactors don’t have containment domes like three mile Island, when Chernobyl blew up a huge amount of the radiation escaped and ended up over Lapland…..Finland and other places as well

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Russian forces were actually firing at Chernobyl in the early stages, troops dug trenches around the site and rolling around in the dirt where contamination was bad, those people were evacuated for treatment in Russia for severe radiation exposure.

 

Early Soviet reactors don’t have containment domes like three mile Island, when Chernobyl blew up a huge amount of the radiation escaped and ended up over Lapland…..Finland and other places as well

 

Since it takes takes at least 25 years to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S., it's all a moot debate anyway. That ship has sailed. And besides, NOBODY wanted a nuclear plant in their backyard. 

 

In Metro Detroit, Marathon finally built a new refinery 10 years ago or so in Delray that is famous for dirty industry, and ever since the people who live and do business there have been fighting the refinery tooth and nail. 

 

Moral of story.....time to move on and find cleaner, safer energy which has been happening over time. No single one is a panacea, but together they are making progress and creating jobs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Since it takes takes at least 25 years to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S., it's all a moot debate anyway. That ship has sailed.....

 

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

 

Quote

The construction time of a nuclear power plant is usually taken as the duration between the pouring of the first 'nuclear concrete' and grid connection. Long construction periods will push up financing costs, and in the past they have done so very significantly. Among electricity generation technologies, the cost of finance is particularly important for the overall economics of nuclear power plants due to the profile of the capital expenditure. Nuclear power plants are more complex than other large-scale power generation plants, and so are more capital-intensive and may take longer to construct. Typically a nuclear power plant will take over five years to construct whereas natural gas-fired plants are frequently built in about two years. Once in operation, the high capital costs of nuclear construction are offset by low and stable variable costs, but the need to finance the upfront construction costs presents a challenge.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

 

Since it takes takes at least 25 years to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S., it's all a moot debate anyway. That ship has sailed. And besides, NOBODY wanted a nuclear plant in their backyard. 

 

In Metro Detroit, Marathon finally built a new refinery 10 years ago or so in Delray that is famous for dirty industry, and ever since the people who live and do business there have been fighting the refinery tooth and nail. 

 

Moral of story.....time to move on and find cleaner, safer energy which has been happening over time. No single one is a panacea, but together they are making progress and creating jobs. 

 

 

I could be wrong and maybe i read false information, but nuclear power is about as clean as it gets!  its also MUCH safer than it used to be.  theres enough outlying land to put a nuclear plant on in the US and we can send power a very long long way.  We missed the boat we shoulda been building these along with wind and solar.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JHForman812 said:

 

 

I could be wrong and maybe i read false information, but nuclear power is about as clean as it gets!  its also MUCH safer than it used to be.  theres enough outlying land to put a nuclear plant on in the US and we can send power a very long long way.  We missed the boat we shoulda been building these along with wind and solar.  

Or adding additional reactors on current sites.  The Shearon  Harris nuclear plant south of Raleigh has room for 3 more reactors.  Duke energy had applied for a permit to build 2 more, but canceled the request in 2013.  If demand warrants, they could still be built.  People don’t seem to have a problem developing around a plant once it exists based on the growth in that area.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future of nuclear power isn't the type of plant you think of today.  It will be the small modular reactors.  There is research being done and they are being pursued.  I think you will see some commercially operational in 10 years or so.

 

Side note...I work at a nuke plant that was originally built for 2 units.  We started the process to obtain the license for Unit 2 back 10-15 years ago, but abandoned it due to costs.  Modular reactors are on our radar to add onsite, but we won't be one of the first ones out of the gate...we're too conservative for that.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why there is debate on here about the grid and full electric vehicles. They make up about 3% of the total market and are still moving at a snail's pace. With the supply problems now, any goals set will not be met. Not even close. High gas prices will help EV a bit, but again supply problems are not going away anytime soon. So utility companies have a very long time line to improve if and when that time comes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

Not sure why there is debate on here about the grid and full electric vehicles.

 

I don't think there's a debate, bzcat mentioned the following in the F-150 Lightning reveal thread.

 

Smart people have already studied the grid capacity and the general consensus is we have plenty of generating capacity to accommodate EVs since most of them charge at night when the electricity is just wasted. We can add resiliency to the grid with more storage capacity but we don't really need a whole bunch of new capacity. Now, if you get your news from rightwing fake news peddler, I can understand why you think we have widespread blackout problem but the truth is we don't have them very often except for real disasters like the recent Texas deep freeze that took out conventional power supplies. And the texas blackout could have been avoided if their grid was connected to the rest of the country so it was a self-inflicted problem (and yes, I'm in the energy industry... it's my job to know)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FordBuyer said:

Not sure why there is debate on here about the grid and full electric vehicles. They make up about 3% of the total market and are still moving at a snail's pace. With the supply problems now, any goals set will not be met. Not even close. High gas prices will help EV a bit, but again supply problems are not going away anytime soon. So utility companies have a very long time line to improve if and when that time comes. 

I was wondering that as well..why would there be a discussion when electric cars are being rammed down everyones throats ?, whilst ICE is apparently being phased out ?, when the "fuel" electric cars are wholly dependent on, are completely reliant on an outdated antique and extremely expensive to update supply chain?...just odd people are debating about it …………. Its called looking forward...and if its up to our wonderful Politicians, apparently inevitable. Ill say it again...for every alternative there are its own set of issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...