Jump to content

How California is preparing its grid to handle the transition to electric vehicles


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

Over the last 20 years, the biggest difference I see is that significant coal generation has been replaced mostly with natural gas (a good thing); plus some wind also.  Solar still plays a minor role.  For years we have been hearing that renewables are cheaper than conventional power plants, so why are we still seeing so much additional natural-gas electric capacity being installed?

The very reason that Coal has been replaced by gas is that gas fired generators produce about 2/3s of the GHGs vs coal and most gas turbines can be fired up quickly and run as either peak load units or as base load in some instances. One big issue with coal plants is that they are uneconomical when running less than 70% generation capacity as they have to switch back to oil on lower numbers.

 

Quote

What I do not see in chart above is evidence of US grid rapidly moving towards 100% renewable energy.  At least grid is cleaner though we could do more by reducing overall demand and eliminating coal plants that much faster.  And then start eliminating natural gas plants after that.

 

Respectfully, I see fine, though I’m probably looking at a bigger picture.

Unfortunately, the chart I posted only goes up to 2020 but even that shows the big move away from coal fired plants as base load units. The renewables like solar, wind, hydro and biogas power generation are much later additions. If we could get hold of later data, it would indeed show a more rapid replacement of coal and greater use of renewables that are becoming cheaper to implement and produce bulk power. As solar and wind increase, they rip into base load supply and tend to accelerate the unprofitably of those coal plants so basically, renewables are forcing coal and gas out the door. The addition of massive battery storage capacity will ultimately be the nail in the coffin for a lot of gas fired generation.

 

Respectfully, I think your view is slightly in the past and by that I mean maybe only 2015 or 2018 but in that time, there’s been one heck of a change. Heck, I didn’t realise it either until I actually stopped and looked at the data. Change is already well under way as the acceleration away from coal has sped up since 2015.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Over the last 20 years, the biggest difference I see is that significant coal generation has been replaced mostly with natural gas (a good thing); plus some wind also.  Solar still plays a minor role.  For years we have been hearing that renewables are cheaper than conventional power plants, so why are we still seeing so much additional natural-gas electric capacity being installed?

 

What I do not see in chart above is evidence of US grid rapidly moving towards 100% renewable energy.  At least grid is cleaner though we could do more by reducing overall demand and eliminating coal plants that much faster.  And then start eliminating natural gas plants after that.

 

Respectfully, I see fine, though I’m probably looking at a bigger picture.

 

You are asking the right question but drawing the wrong inference. Renewable is cheapest on per KW basis but there is fixed costs for power producers to switch. It's a question of capital investment. US Govt policy hasn't favor renewable until fairly recently. For most of the 21st century, the US govt encouraged fracking and discouraged investment in wind and solar so gas generation predictably increased. Those newly installed gas capacity over the last 20 years has useful life of 30 years on average so they are not going to be phased out overnight. The Govt policy is now more balanced rather than lopsided in favor of gas so solar and wind capacity are growing much faster than other sources. And as I mentioned before, coal is basically regulated out of existence now so it will decline every year as old plants retire. So would gas's share of the total power generation as the plants retire.

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bzcat said:

You are asking the right question but drawing the wrong inference. Renewable is cheapest on per KW basis but there is fixed costs for power producers to switch. 

 

I just can’t get too excited over California being down to one coal plant when China has declared plans to add up to 270 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, or Germany being forced to start up decommissioned old coal plants due to economic and security concerns.  Granted, some of China’s stated plans may be posturing for political gain, but that they continue to add coal capacity is undeniable.  The obvious question is if renewable capacity is cheaper, why would any country build coal-fired plants?  Or why would UK build new nuclear plants which are even more expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

I just can’t get too excited over California being down to one coal plant when China has declared plans to add up to 270 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, or Germany being forced to start up decommissioned old coal plants due to economic and security concerns.  Granted, some of China’s stated plans may be posturing for political gain, but that they continue to add coal capacity is undeniable.  The obvious question is if renewable capacity is cheaper, why would any country build coal-fired plants?  Or why would UK build new nuclear plants which are even more expensive?

 

The issue is that no one thing is a one size fits all...the US has lots of places for renewables then say the UK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The issue is that no one thing is a one size fits all...the US has lots of places for renewables then say the UK. 

 

Regardless of our renewable efforts, data confirm we are burning more coal than ever, and that’s on top of greater natural gas too.  Globally we are producing more green house gases and if we view this issue realistically based on every country caring more about its own energy and security interests than they do global warming, we can see plans are not working.

 

My opinion based on data remains that we need to prioritize reducing electrical demand and creating a greener grid first, then push electrification.  Presently, adding loads on grid just makes matters worse (considering most of US grid is interconnected).

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2022/11/15/china-maintains-plans-for-massive-additional-coal-expansion/

 

DE00E67C-428D-40BD-B01C-A2C3428F1F5B.thumb.jpeg.5cbb3e025addaa9c6cf2b813368376fc.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not an either/or choice with reducing GHGs, the West is showing China and India the way

but if they refuse to make significant reductions, they might find a lot of valuable export markets  dry up….

 

Also, China’s planned increase in coal consumption has to be weighed against other reductions it is doing,

like the rapid increase in renewables to cover their wholesale vehicle electrification scheme and all the gasoline

and diesel sales that are never coming back.

 

There’s a lot of pluses and minuses to look at but China expanding coal fired plants has been a concern for the past two decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storage, storage, storage. I can't repeat that often enough. 

 

We don't have problem generating renewable energy. It is the cheapest form of energy.

 

The grid needs more storage to enable time shift to consumption, and Govt needs to provide financial incentives for power producers to shift to renewables early before the existing useful life of coal and gas plants expire. Our problem right now is not that we can't build new infrastructure. The problem is existing asset owners doesn't want to impair their assets on their balance sheet (it has financial implications). In order to rebalance that, we have to change the economic incentives and related accounting practice. This is why the fossil fuel industry to launching all out fake news assault on ESG financial reporting guidelines like they did with global warming. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bzcat said:

We don't have problem generating renewable energy. It is the cheapest form of energy.

 

That's correct bzcat. Ford is taking advantage of that, with all of its manufacturing plants in Europe already sourcing 100% of their electricity needs from renewable sources as of January 2023. Ford's plants in Michigan will achieve the same goal by 2025 or earlier. Ford Announces New Solar Power Plant as Further Step Towards Achieving Ambitious Sustainability Targets | Ford Media Center

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...