States/Cities Attempting To Limit You Self Produced Power...

[OffGridForGood]

Perhaps. Let's leave it, it's adding no value.

Instead we can all watch the natural experiment taking place here, with South Australia at the vanguard (with other States following closely behind). Next Spring and Summer (Sep-Feb) will be particularly interesting as the grid there pushes beyond 80% VRE and more of the distributed supply and demand control mechanisms take effect.

Last year the State was powered with 73.5% VRE in Spring and 80.1% VRE in Summer. Those are numbers to scare the pants off any grid operator I reckon.

Western Australia has also instituted grid operator remote supply control mechanisms for rooftop PV, and QLD is doing the same, albeit with a far cruder (but reliable) method of using ripple control signals.

Meanwhile electricity distributors here will be introducing new fee structures for power flowing in both directions (up to know all charges have related to power flowing to premises, not from them), but such changes need to be revenue neutral. IOW at times there will be an additional cost for supplying power to the grid when it's not needed. This will come with additional incentive to supply power when it is.

Very good information Wattmatters, I have been following along with your comments, as I see what is occuring in Australia as a kind of crystal ball of our own future on this side of the planet. In my Province (Ontario) we have only 1% solar in the mix so far, but 12% of our electricity is wind.
{for interest: Ontario electrical mix per Hydro One 2021; Nueclear 33%, Nat.Gas 29%, Hydro-elect 23%, wind 12%, Solar 1%, biomass 1%} they use the Nat.Gas for peaker plants generally.
I don't hear scare mongering from Utilities on this side of the 49th about "the danger of EV's or solar PV destablizing a fragile grid".
With our low current share of intermittent renewables in the electrical gid (about 14% total as of 2021) I see we are a long way from the situation you have shared from Australia, and why the renewables don't actually cause concern.
Ontario has long been split into two, electrically, however over the last three years, the high voltage grid was upgraded to connect my region (NW) to the main populated part of Ontario (all the rest) allowing for more load sharing both directions, and export of more hydro-electric & solar from the Northern areas to the populated south.
We generally have smart meters and TOU rates available all across the Province, and I believe with controls (like you have described) each home could be both an energy producer or consumer and allow non-critical load shut-downs remotely via signals or other tech to ensure the system as a whole is reliable and efficient well into the future. Exciting times to live in. Thanks for all your comments.

 

[NPhil]

Perhaps. Let's leave it, it's adding no value.

Perhaps. Except, it's characteristic (from my now fairly lengthy amateur study of such things) of arguments for...

Instead we can all watch the natural experiment taking place here, with South Australia at the vanguard (with other States following closely behind). Next Spring and Summer (Sep-Feb) will be particularly interesting as the grid there pushes beyond 80% VRE and more of the distributed supply and demand control mechanisms take effect.

A massive effort to re-make the grid (along with many other such things), by an ideology which never made the case with reasoned argument, supported by objective measurement, but instead resorts routinely to persuasion by fear-mongering, accusing and cancelling people who dare to argue a skeptical view, and re-framing narratives. For example, a decades-long push, complete with ideology and political agenda, for "Change" isn't obviously a "natural experiment".

Western Australia has also instituted grid operator remote supply control mechanisms for rooftop PV, and QLD is doing the same, albeit with a far cruder (but reliable) method of using ripple control signals.

Meanwhile electricity distributors here will be introducing new fee structures for power flowing in both directions (up to know all charges have related to power flowing to premises, not from them), but such changes need to be revenue neutral. IOW at times there will be an additional cost for supplying power to the grid when it's not needed. This will come with additional incentive to supply power when it is.

I'm not here to tell you how to drive changes to your grid (from the back-seat, presumably). I'm here to argue that there are risks which are not fully understood even by the experts, that people who are not intimately involved with the industry are not necessarily in the best position to understand those risks, and that dismissing publicly expressed concerns about the consequences to grid stability of politically popular demands for significant alterations to the technical infrastructure of that industry, a technical infrastructure upon which the stability of your whole civilization heavily depends, daily, with "argument" which boils to "they are greedy, evil people, so what they say must be false", might not be a way to actually improve the cost and reliability.
That's what I have been watching, I think, here in California, for about 50 years which I can personally recall, and it's not a bandwagon I am inclined to get aboard, or even applaud as it passes me by, flinging fallacy with abandon.

 

[SolarRich]

Collapsology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[wattmatters]

A massive effort to re-make the grid (along with many other such things), by an ideology which never made the case with reasoned argument,

What ideology is that?

Not all that much remaking of the grid going on here. Some new transmission and distribution infrastructure, but that's a normal thing to add in a growing nation. Local distribution infrastructure is improved via the normal growth and maintenance cycle.

I'm not here to tell you how to drive changes to your grid (from the back-seat, presumably). I'm here to argue that there are risks which are not fully understood even by the experts, that people who are not intimately involved with the industry are not necessarily in the best position to understand those risks, and that dismissing publicly expressed concerns about the consequences to grid stability of politically popular demands for significant alterations to the technical infrastructure of that industry, a technical infrastructure upon which the stability of your whole civilization heavily depends, daily, with "argument" which boils to "they are greedy, evil people, so what they say must be false", might not be a way to actually improve the cost and reliability.

Not once have I said there were no risks, nor am I dismissing them. I am only pointing to a natural experiment from which we can learn, and strategies for how to mitigate them.

There are also serious risks with doing nothing.

might not be a way to actually improve the cost and reliability.

Cost and reliability are vital but are not the only important factors. Cost to the environment is also an important balancing consideration.

 

[wattmatters]

In my Province (Ontario) we have only 1% solar in the mix so far, but 12% of our electricity is wind.
{for interest: Ontario electrical mix per Hydro One 2021; Nueclear 33%, Nat.Gas 29%, Hydro-elect 23%, wind 12%, Solar 1%, biomass 1%} they use the Nat.Gas for peaker plants generally.

Your access to nuclear power is a significant difference to here.

Our only large dispatchable low carbon electrical energy source is hydro (~7.5%). We don't have nuclear, nor will we be likely to. Unless something miraculous happens with SMR viability. Overall we are 55% coal and 9% gas.

 

[ItsThem]

I got news for you @Tulex . It's whatever party is in control in your state that is limiting solar through regulatory capture

^^ this
The Great Reset and Sustainable Development scam, rolling on in

 

[OffGridForGood]

Your access to nuclear power is a significant difference to here.

Our only large dispatchable low carbon electrical energy source is hydro (~7.5%). We don't have nuclear, nor will we be likely to. Unless something miraculous happens with SMR viability. Overall we are 55% coal and 9% gas.

Nuclear is a mixed blessing/problem - with the safety requirements, it is by far the most expensive way to make electricity, argueably it is non-carbon although uranium mining comes with carbon intense machinery. Years ago, Ontario nuclear generated electricity was 66% of the mix, but we have been able to reduce this. Waste disposal is a growing concern, and the inherent waste of using only 1% of the available energy from nuclear seems to leave a lot of room for improvements. As a Province, in 2001 we said we will accept nuclear over coal, and the plans were set to close the last coal fired electrical plants (last one closed in 2014) We are undecided about new nuclear, maybe those micro nuclear plants (?) but it seems there may be better options. Most of the best solar potential is far away from most of the population it seems, and un-tapped hydro electric potential was isolated from the populated south-east Ontario until just this year. I believe we will see more PV added into the mix and many new hydro-electric plants now that the NW and SE are connected with high tension long transmission lines. It took nearly three years to get the "East-West" tie completed, but you have to realize, Ontario is a pretty big land area to cross, and much of it is pretty rugged, with "two" types of ground: too rocky and too wet.

 

[OffGridForGood]

An online search returned 'California Solar input to their electrical grid is 14%'
Not clear how much of this 14% is large solar farms, vs residential solar PV inputs.
I note this since a large solar farm is a commercial operation, and would be carefully planned and implemented to work with the rest of the grid, where-as say 1-million residential PV installations may be less carefully controlled to work with the grid, at least less carefully from the grid operator's point of view.
Someone noted Hawaii has a higer percentage of solar PV, A search indicated 17%, but the total solar is lower output than Cali, just higher percentage. Cost of electricity in Hawaii varies by region, looks like typical rates are 38-50 cents per kWh.

 

[wattmatters]

Over last 12 months Australia:

Solar PV contribution to total grid demand
State  TOTAL  Rooftop  Utility
NSW    16.0%    8.9%     7.1%
QLD    19.0%   11.1%     8.0%
VIC    12.0%    8.8%     3.2%
WA     18.2%   16.3%     1.9%
SA     23.4%   18.1%     5.3%
TAS    12.0%    8.8%     3.2%
-----------------------------
ALL    15.8%   10.3%     5.6%

Some rounding in these numbers.

 

[LittleLebowski]

Over last 12 months Australia:

Solar PV contribution to total grid demand
State  TOTAL  Rooftop  Utility
NSW    16.0%    8.9%     7.1%
QLD    19.0%   11.1%     8.0%
VIC    12.0%    8.8%     3.2%
WA     18.2%   16.3%     1.9%
SA     23.4%   18.1%     5.3%
TAS    12.0%    8.8%     3.2%
-----------------------------
ALL    15.8%   10.3%     5.6%

Some rounding in these numbers.

It's been a long while since I've been in Oz (your countrymen were wonderful hosts for my Marine Corps unit!), but any idea why SA is so far ahead of the other states?

 

[wattmatters]

It's been a long while since I've been in Oz (your countrymen were wonderful hosts for my Marine Corps unit!), but any idea why SA is so far ahead of the other states?

It's a combination of factors but in the early-2000s, a government was elected in part on promises to reduce carbon emissions and their reliance on importing power/energy. Up to 2006 SA's was wholly fossil fuel generation, while in 1999 more than one-third of the state's power was imported. Another factor has been a reasonable reliance on science, engineering and economics to inform policy. That's not to say base politics wasn't a factor, as it always will be.

Even with little actual control over power generation and transmission assets due to a privatisation agenda of the state government in the 1990s which sold off public energy assets, they put in place some policy settings with the few levers they did have and so began on their journey earlier than the rest of the country.

Things like mapping the solar and wind resources to help industry with investment location decisions and assisting with HV transmission development (not a lot required as the location of coal power stations also happened to be good places for wind power generation). That wind gained a strong hold was largely just economics, with investment by commercial enterprises. It was already cheaper than the existing generation mix.

Wind power was the primary generation source used with the first turbines supplying power in 2007, while solar PV did not really kick in until the 2010s. Up to then some generous solar PV incentives helped early adopters. By mid-2010s solar PV became a LOT cheaper and so started the rooftop revolution and uptake accelerated. State govt incentives were wound back by then with the last premium feed-in tariff scheme closing in 2013. The last coal power station closed in 2016. They still use some coal power, just indirectly via imports (10%) from Victoria.

SA also introduced a pretty generous subsidy for home battery storage which ended last year.

As a result of early commitments to transition and setting of targets, they have had much more experience with managing the issues such a transition creates. The addition of large batteries and syncons has really helped with adoption of a high proportion of VRE. The adoption of smart control of rooftop PV assets is just another step.

The rate of transition has been faster than they expected, but it has resulted in SA having the lowest wholesale electricity prices in the nation. Retail prices are still high though, mainly due to their relatively higher transmission and distribution costs (low population to spread costs across) and hangover from the 1990s privatisations.

SA has large gas reserves in the north east of the state, and 30% of the world's Uranium.

They even had an independent Royal Commission to examine the viability of establishing nuclear power and/or the role the state might play within the nuclear fuel cycle.

 

[NPhil]

What ideology is that?

Not all that much remaking of the grid going on here. Some new transmission and distribution infrastructure, but that's a normal thing to add in a growing nation. Local distribution infrastructure is improved via the normal growth and maintenance cycle.


Not once have I said there were no risks, nor am I dismissing them. I am only pointing to a natural experiment from which we can learn, and strategies for how to mitigate them.

There are also serious risks with doing nothing.


Cost and reliability are vital but are not the only important factors. Cost to the environment is also an important balancing consideration.

Straw man. My argument isn't that we should do nothing (to "Change") complex systems, it is that we should do nothing (to "Change") complex systems most of the time (when no alterations are clearly justified, after careful consideration, by experts who are intimately familiar with the technology).which is in fact the lowest risk.

My reason for commenting was to answer comments which were in fact dismissive of the concerns of operators about grid stability. Please don't try to tell me I imagined it. Here's a video about risks which might help the reader understand.

 

[wattmatters]

Straw man.

You are the one who brought up ideology, not me. So asking the question to clarify which ideology you were referring to is hardly a strawman argument.

My argument isn't that we should do nothing (to "Change") complex systems, it is that we should do nothing (to "Change") complex systems most of the time (when no alterations are clearly justified, after careful consideration, by experts who are intimately familiar with the technology).which is in fact the lowest risk.

No one is arguing that such regulatory or technical changes to our grid supply systems be made by unqualified people. That is a strawman.

I've no idea about where you are but here each and every rooftop grid-tied solar PV systems must be individually approved by the grid operators. The actual grid operators make the calls. No one else.

We are not permitted to DIY a grid-tied system here. The grid operators can refuse connection, or apply strict limitations on its operation. They can post-hoc inspect it (in some areas it's mandatory before it can be energised). The grid operators here (i.e. the experts in the field) are continually refining the regulations and requirements for connection of any generation source precisely because of concerns with impacts to the system. This applies to grid-wide considerations as well as street level ones. If the local transformer is not up to the task, then your application may be refused unless and until it has been upgraded in the normal course of operational infrastructure management.

My reason for commenting was to answer comments which were in fact dismissive of the concerns of operators about grid stability. Please don't try to tell me I imagined it. Here's a video about risks which might help the reader understand.

No one is being dismissive about issue of grid stability. Only pointing out that such issues can be managed, and this is clearly can be done as demonstrated by a live example.

All that video demonstrated was allowing people to undertake work on a gas distribution network without expert engineering oversight can lead to disaster.

 

[Hedges]

Grid is actually pretty unstable without rooftop PV.
Sometimes our power collapses and grid cuts off in California due to insufficient generation/transmission compared to load, especially on hot days. Rooftop PV helps forestall that.
Of course, grid operator having control over rooftop PV production is necessary with higher percentage penetration. And that is what is occurring and rooftop PV continues to be built out.

 

[NPhil]

You are the one who brought up ideology, not me. So asking the question to clarify which ideology you were referring to is hardly a strawman argument.

That wasn't the straw man. I didn't attempt to reply to your question because that would have been silly. With the advantage of hindsight, it was perhaps optimistic of me to expect you to address the substance of my comment.

No one is arguing that such regulatory or technical changes to our grid supply systems be made by unqualified people. That is a strawman.

Are you posing a straw man straw man? "Backseat driving" the grid design by pressuring regulators to favor rapid change to politically favored types of generation is exactly change made by unqualified people.

I've no idea about where you are but here each and every rooftop grid-tied solar PV systems must be individually approved by the grid operators. The actual grid operators make the calls. No one else.

Straw man. I haven't claimed that is happening (although it although it almost certainly is, of course). My issue is that dismissing concern about long term stability is foolishness, even when it's denied.

We are not permitted to DIY a grid-tied system here...

If you really believe I suggested that, you have missed my point.

No one is being dismissive about issue of grid stability. Only pointing out that such issues can be managed, and this is clearly can be done as demonstrated by a live example.

What is it, exactly, that you are attempting to rebut, with repeated nit-picking, obfuscating, and etc. of my comments, if not my fairly mild, I thought, implication (once unremarkable) that we should consider the risks of pushing the experts to hurry up and alter large and complex power systems to suit the preference of the energy production ideology currently in fashion before getting on that bandwagon?

All that video demonstrated was allowing people to undertake work on a gas distribution network without expert engineering oversight can lead to disaster.

"All"? That's nonsense. Possibly that's all you saw.

 

[wattmatters]

Are you posing a straw man straw man? "Backseat driving" the grid design by pressuring regulators to favor rapid change to politically favored types of generation is exactly change made by unqualified people.

It's the grid operators and regulators here who are the ones calling for and supporting the changes. Our national energy market operator, AEMO, prepares an integrated system plan each year. Here's the opening paragraphs of their executive summary:

Executive summary

The irreversible energy transition is a challenge and an opportunity The National Electricity Market (NEM) is supporting a once-in-a-century transformation in the way electricity is generated and consumed in eastern and south-eastern Australia. It will replace legacy assets with low-cost renewables, add energy storage and other new forms of firming capacity, and reconfigure the grid to support two-way energy flow. Consumers will be able to draw on low-emission electricity for their transport, industry, office and homes, replacing oil, gas and other fuels.

Technical innovation, ageing generation plants, economics, government policies, energy security and consumer choice are all driving this transformation, and driving it faster than many anticipated. Some of them form part of the global push for net zero emissions by 2050, while others are independent. All the while, the NEM must continue to meet its objective – to provide reliable, secure and affordable electricity to consumers.

As the global economy gathers pace towards its net zero future, countries that have excess low-cost renewable energy will be at a distinct advantage. Australia is extremely well-positioned to be one of those countries, with options to export that energy, or use it in industrial production or for energy-intensive digital industries.

https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/major-publications/isp/2022/2022-documents/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp.pdf?la=en

My issue is that dismissing concern about long term stability is foolishness

Again, no one is dismissing it.

Only pointing out with real life examples to demonstrate it is possible to achieve change without significant risk. It just needs to be planned and managed carefully.

Complex systems didn't start that way. They all grew from something simpler and they are always in a state of change.

No grid is static - it constantly has to change and adapt to serve the needs of the community at large. New generation is added, old generation removed, transmission is added or upgraded, some is removed. Technology changes. The economics of grid systems change. Grid demand changes as the community grows or shrinks and as new towns and cities emerge (or decline). Consumption patterns change. Sources of energy change.

There is no such option of not making a change to a grid.

The only constant is change itself.

What is it, exactly, that you are attempting to rebut

Nothing.

I was simply pointing out there are examples today of where significant changes are being made to complex grid systems, yet somehow they are not falling apart. They are in fact showing us what is possible and that we need not fear such change, but rather work in a manner to ensure it does go as smoothly as possible.

 

[AntronX]

An online search returned 'California Solar input to their electrical grid is 14%'

On April 12 at 2.20pm solar generation in California was 78% of demand (14.76GW/18.9GW).





They manage it by relying on 10GW worth of power arbitrage via interconnection to other states. Batteries are also playing significant role now at 5 GW of arbitrage capacity on 5/12/23 but should be capable of 4.7GW * 2 = 9.4 GW of charge/discharge power arbitrage range. Charts from here: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html California has come a long way with battery storage during past 3 years.

 

[740GLE]

If load is low due to cool weather then the PV % on a given day will be all skewed.

Compare a nice toast July/Aug day vs nice cool spring day.


Also knowing load during the winter is hanging around after peak PV in the afternoon the total MWHr or GWHr of PV prob still counts for a small % of total fuel source.

 

[AntronX]

If load is low due to cool weather then the PV % on a given day will be all skewed.
Compare a nice toast July/Aug day vs nice cool spring day.

This just to show that CA grid can absorb ~80% solar provided there is sufficient interconnection capacity and storage. Forgot to mention ~15GW of nat gas ramping capacity available as well.

 

[NPhil]

Grid is actually pretty unstable without rooftop PV.
Sometimes our power collapses and grid cuts off in California due to insufficient generation/transmission compared to load, especially on hot days. Rooftop PV helps forestall that.
Of course, grid operator having control over rooftop PV production is necessary with higher percentage penetration. And that is what is occurring and rooftop PV continues to be built out.

Of course it is, _now,_ but that is a consequence of political decisions to pursue "Change" at the expense of stability.