FilterGuy
Solar Engineering Consultant - EG4 and Consumers
This high level analysis of the costs and engineering problems renewable energy presents for reliable grid power in California. Even though it is specific to CA... the problems will be the same world wide.
I liken using renewable energy to a 3 legged stool. The legs being: Generation, Storage and Distribution. If you don't have a good balance between the three, it doesn't stand.
Sadly, by the time the discussion gets to Sacramento (State Capital), it is simplified down to "install more solar and shut down all fossil fuel and nuclear plants immediately". That sounds good, but it creates it's own set of problems because we are a long way off from having the distribution grid and the grid level storage technologies (let alone installations) needed for that plan.
Part of the issue is that no one seems to want to add the storage costs to the underlying cost of solar. This creates a misleading narrative about how cheap solar is and that perpetuates the idea the all we have to do is add more solar.
When poorly thought out policies create problems of rolling black-outs, it just gives skeptics more ammunition....and sadly that polarizes things even more.
Here are a few policies that sounds good on the surface but in actuality can create new problems without really solving any old problems:
* San Jose has banned natural gas stoves. That seems great.... less carbon. However, stoves are mostly used in the evening when solar production has dropped off.... consequently, the base load generation problem gets worse and the demand has to be met by natural gas powered peaker plants. In addition, the extra energy cost is going to hurt the lower income communities more than others. There may someday be a time when banning natural gas stoves makes sense.... but not yet.
* California has mandated solar on all new homes. More Renewables sounds great. However, California is already creating more power than it can use during the day. The investment would be better spent on the grid and storage infrastructure to better use the solar that is already in place.... Furthermore, this rule raises the price of housing which is already a huge problem in the state.
* New solar installations still get state and federal subsidies..... This has the same problem as mandating solar on new houses. It would be far better to spend that money on grid and storage infrastructure to better use the solar CA already has.
It is problems like these that make me doubt our politicians have it in them to make good policy. They will only do things that look good, not necessarily what makes sense. What is worse, there seems to be little push back to ask if the policy makes sense.... in fact discussions about what makes sense are actively discouraged. As soon as you question these kind of policies you are labeled as a climate denier and completely dismissed.
I am all in on moving to renewables.... but we need a plan to do it reliably and sensibly. Without such a plan, I fear the problems being created is actually slowing down the progress.
I liken using renewable energy to a 3 legged stool. The legs being: Generation, Storage and Distribution. If you don't have a good balance between the three, it doesn't stand.
Sadly, by the time the discussion gets to Sacramento (State Capital), it is simplified down to "install more solar and shut down all fossil fuel and nuclear plants immediately". That sounds good, but it creates it's own set of problems because we are a long way off from having the distribution grid and the grid level storage technologies (let alone installations) needed for that plan.
Part of the issue is that no one seems to want to add the storage costs to the underlying cost of solar. This creates a misleading narrative about how cheap solar is and that perpetuates the idea the all we have to do is add more solar.
When poorly thought out policies create problems of rolling black-outs, it just gives skeptics more ammunition....and sadly that polarizes things even more.
Here are a few policies that sounds good on the surface but in actuality can create new problems without really solving any old problems:
* San Jose has banned natural gas stoves. That seems great.... less carbon. However, stoves are mostly used in the evening when solar production has dropped off.... consequently, the base load generation problem gets worse and the demand has to be met by natural gas powered peaker plants. In addition, the extra energy cost is going to hurt the lower income communities more than others. There may someday be a time when banning natural gas stoves makes sense.... but not yet.
* California has mandated solar on all new homes. More Renewables sounds great. However, California is already creating more power than it can use during the day. The investment would be better spent on the grid and storage infrastructure to better use the solar that is already in place.... Furthermore, this rule raises the price of housing which is already a huge problem in the state.
* New solar installations still get state and federal subsidies..... This has the same problem as mandating solar on new houses. It would be far better to spend that money on grid and storage infrastructure to better use the solar CA already has.
It is problems like these that make me doubt our politicians have it in them to make good policy. They will only do things that look good, not necessarily what makes sense. What is worse, there seems to be little push back to ask if the policy makes sense.... in fact discussions about what makes sense are actively discouraged. As soon as you question these kind of policies you are labeled as a climate denier and completely dismissed.
I am all in on moving to renewables.... but we need a plan to do it reliably and sensibly. Without such a plan, I fear the problems being created is actually slowing down the progress.