The value of resilience

[Ampster]

A lot of the Big Creek is now gone in the fire. I hope they will be able to rebuild and not be tied up in greenwashing BS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Cr...ectric_Project

Most of the power plants were concrete but the employee housing and SCE's conference center were all stick construction, I hope they can rebuild. My sympathies to those affected

Shaver Lake is part of that complex and a smaller version was originally built to store water for a lumber mill and the water was used to flume the cut boards down to the valley where the water was sold to the farmers.
Thanks for the link, It has been 25 years since I went on an SCE tour of that facility and my recall of the details was fuzzy, My daughter spent a week or two at one of the camps in the area and I have fond memories of going on a camping trip there in the fifties.

[Mike90250]

................
The Big Creek Project, for example has 9 lakes created by dams that cover about 12 sq. miles total..

A lot of the Big Creek is now gone in the fire. I hope they will be able to rebuild and not be tied up in greenwashing BS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Creek_Hydroelectric_Project

[Ampster]

,,,,
I'd encourage folks to check out Sierra Nevada hydro projects of the type Ampster is writing about. ..........
The Big Creek Project, for example has 9 lakes created by dams that cover about 12 sq. miles total.
,,,.

Yes it was one or two two of the Big Creek projects I was referring to. Some of those were originally built by Henry Huntington to power his Pacific Electric trolley car system in Los Angeles.That is how Huntington Lake got its name.

SCE acquired the generating assets and the transmission lines and some time in the sixties built one more facility. By then building dams was so full of hurdles that SCE built a power plant inside the mountain a thousand feet or more below the wide spot in the river where the penstocks catch the water. For whatever reason those assets were not divested with all the other generating assets during deregulation.

[J.P.M.]

FYI, there are a few small hydro facilites in the Sierras in California that do not have large resevoirs. They rely on long penstock pipes to get the pressure for efficient hydro power generation. Those facilities do not lend themselves well to the storage of energy in resevoirs.

Also in California I do see some examples of storage being built in conjunction with solar farms. I dont know what the driver is for those investment decisions to include storage. It may be unique to the California market. I can only speculate that since many of those investments are made with Power Purchase Agreements the return on investment may be greater if the solar farm has more flexibility on when it can deliver power. I can think of a couple scenerios where that might be true.

By definition, available head (height) less velocity head loss at the turbine outlet determines available water pressure at the turbine inlet. That and available flowrate determine available power. The elevation head was there before the reservoir, otherwise the reservoir height would not be possible. As a practical matter the reservoir height will not exceed the site head available before the dam was built. Water storage behind dams helps make the available energy easier to regulate. Site conditions, geology and other factors determine what type of storage is possible or necessary.

As for efficiency, that's largely a matter of turbine efficiency (low friction losses) and turbine outlet mass velocity considerations and requirements. If all the flow energy from the turbine were extracted the exit velocity of the water would need to be zero. So, some velocity head or flow energy is needed to move the water away from the turbine outlet. Small turbines, say < maybe a couple of MWe that are well maintained can have conversion efficiencies well above 80 %. Larger turbines such as used at the Niagara power projects have efficiencies well above 90 %. Beyond some small head and/or small flowrate, or for very low head applications, head, or as you seem to be calling it "long penstock pipes" has little to do with efficiency. Very low mass velocities (but not necessarily flow fluid velocities) however do impair turbine efficiencies, mostly due to scaling (size) considerations that make some types of more efficient turbines un suitable for small applications.

I'd encourage folks to check out Sierra Nevada hydro projects of the type Ampster is writing about. They are generally characterized by systems of dams at varying elevations with the higher dams penstocks feeding a turbine that empties into a reservoir created by a dam. Some of the flows are not as great as some other projects of greater mass flowrates, but the total system output can be quite high due to very large total elevation changes of up to ~ 7,000 ft.
The Big Creek Project, for example has 9 lakes created by dams that cover about 12 sq. miles total.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[Ampster]

I've read that too. IIRC the primary use of storage on the grid is easing transmission constraints. If you need an extra 10MW at a bottleneck for an hour or so it can be cheaper to add a 20MWh battery than re-conductor 40 miles of wire.

This is only anectdotal information from a consultant but an example was used that said the same thing for disrtribution, I was working with the staff of a city I used to live in on a CEC proposal for a grant for a micro grid for a new fire station and emergency services.buiding. The consultant helping us put the proposal together gave an example of a school district in the Central Valley of California that installed a micro grid and the impact was that it changed the load in that area such that PG&E was able to defer several hundred thousand dollars of infrastructure upgrades previously sheduled for that area.

Technology is creating some solutions that were not possible in the past. It is creating problems too, because the information and control systems are not bidirectional even though a transformer is natively bidirectional.

[nwdiver]

What I have heard is that the ability to place battery storage on substation real estate has solved some of the distribution issues but that is only anecdotal and I don't know how that scales up and mitigates some of the transmission issues.

I've read that too. IIRC the primary use of storage on the grid is easing transmission constraints. If you need an extra 10MW at a bottleneck for an hour or so it can be cheaper to add a 20MWh battery than re-conductor 40 miles of wire.

[Ampster]

I sat on the board of directors of a medium size electrical utility. ............

Low cost production wins. Coal and nuclear power are dead.....not just dead but dead, dead, dead. (at current level of technology)

But production was not our highest cost....it was transmission. And there is where we need more research. IMHO for every dollar we spend on electrical production and storage research we should spend $2 on electrical transmission research. Ultra low loss or no loss electrical transmission is the holy grail. It practically eliminates all the production and storage problems we are grappling with today. It sure would be a game changer. I hope to see it yet in my lifetime.

I studied economics under disciples of Milton Friedman and still believe in market economics. Transmission is one of those things that scales up significantly and is more efficient if there is one provider in a particular market. I think there are national issues with transmission of electricity, especially in the the rest of the country east of California. I am not up to speed on the efforts to have some kind of west coast ISO but the current capacity crisis indicates some need for that.

What I have heard is that the ability to place battery storage on substation real estate has solved some of the distribution issues but that is only anecdotal and I don't know how that scales up and mitigates some of the transmission issues. Even though I am pursuing a strategy of being self sufficient I still rely on the grid to charge my EVs and would be willing to pay a fixed fee for my connection if I could be assured those funds would go into improving the flexibility of the transmission and distribution network.

[Ampster]

.....

The reservoir of a hydro plant is more of a fault than a feature. If it was viable to immediately convert incoming water into a kWh that would be the most cost effective approach. The powerhouse is a bottleneck.......

FYI, there are a few small hydro facilites in the Sierras in California that do not have large resevoirs. They rely on long penstock pipes to get the pressure for efficient hydro power generation. Those facilities do not lend themselves well to the storage of energy in resevoirs.

Also in California I do see some examples of storage being built in conjunction with solar farms. I dont know what the driver is for those investment decisions to include storage. It may be unique to the California market. I can only speculate that since many of those investments are made with Power Purchase Agreements the return on investment may be greater if the solar farm has more flexibility on when it can deliver power. I can think of a couple scenerios where that might be true.

[nwdiver]

Beyond my admittedly simple allegory, but analogous to hydroelectric power needing storage because the source of the hydro power produced is not steady or even predictable (rain), other types of power generation and in the end the grid itself can benefit from storage. The trick is to make the storage safe, practical, cost effective and probably scalable.

If the bread is going out the door faster than you can bake it why would you set any aside? A kWh is a kWh.

The reservoir of a hydro plant is more of a fault than a feature. If it was viable to immediately convert incoming water into a kWh that would be the most cost effective approach. The powerhouse is a bottleneck.

You're missing the biggest problem with storage, why I keep repeating the fact we need SURPLUS renewables for mass storage to be viable and why the fact we lack mass storage is an indication of need not ability. There's an energy cost to storage. It makes no sense to store a GWh and use 900MWh later if you can just use that GWh now. If we added mass storage now without sufficient renewable generation emissions would go UP at least ~10%. You'd be spending $$$ to make negative progress. For the 3rd time now.... why, why would you invest in storage to move chairs around the titanic when you can spend money to pump water OUT with more renewables?

Coal and nuclear power are dead.....not just dead but dead, dead, dead. (at current level of technology)

Agreed; We need non-thermal nuclear. Not even sure how that would even work...

[J.P.M.]

That you need to have surplus electricity to charge a battery before grid storage is viable?

If you want to use a battery to provide the bulk of grid services you need the thing charging the battery to be surplus (curtailed renewable energy)... otherwise you would just use the generator that charges the battery to provide those services.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you have a bakery that can bake 10 loaves of bread an hour. You can easily sell 100 loaves of bread an hour. Would you invest in a place to store bread before or after you're able to meet the demand of 100 loaves and hour? Why go though the expense of storing something when you can sell it immediately?

I'd use a slightly different bakery allegory.
Say I own/operate a bakery, but it's rather specialized. It's one of several in the area but, like the others, it sells only one type of bread. Fortunately, most everyone is convinced they need the bread I and the other specialized bakeries produce.
I am open 24/7 and sales are 240 loaves/24 hrs. Customer traffic, and sales are fairly steady and predictable over most any 24 hr. period.
Now, say something happened a few years ago and now my customers buying patterns different such that many more folks are coming into my shop mid/late afternoon in such numbers that I run out of bread for a few hours during late afternoon/early evening- something that a lot of folks think they can't live without.
Also, say my ovens can produce 240 loaves/day at full production at the rate of 10 loaves/hr., no more per hour.. Demand is still 240 loaves/24 hrs. but with the new sales flow pattern there will be times with when I may sell out of product for a few hours late in the afternoon. What am I to do ?
Well, I have options.
I can buy bread from the other similar product producers with some but not guaranteed reliability, and at very high prices to me - which I must pass on to my now less than happy customers.
I can also get more production capacity. However, ovens are very expensive and at least some of that high priced increase in production capacity will be wasted as my product has a very short shelf life - say 8 hrs. - so after the rush is over, the ovens either shut down or produce product that will not be used/discarded.
Or, better yet, I can add an appropriately sized bread storage facility that has enough capacity to supply the excess demand over the 10 loaves/hr. of oven capacity to get through the new sales pattern of mid/late afternoon product demand/sales of a few hours.

Beyond my admittedly simple allegory, but analogous to hydroelectric power needing storage because the source of the hydro power produced is not steady or even predictable (rain), other types of power generation and in the end the grid itself can benefit from storage. The trick is to make the storage safe, practical, cost effective and probably scalable.

[DanS26]

I sat on the board of directors of a medium size electrical utility. We produced, transmitted and distributed electrical energy to over 600,000 retail customers and thousands of commercial and industrial customers.

It cost us ~$0.03 kWh to produce and ~$0.045 kWh to transmit to distribution units. The distribution business in turn sold the electrical energy for ~$0.105 kWh to retail customers. Pretty sweet deal for everyone.

Now along comes regulations to clean up our mess and also to make the air cleaner since over 97% of production was coal powered. Many people called it the big stinker....I just called it "the machine". Walking inside that plant at full base load operation was like walking into the belly of the beast.

As you can imagine cost of production increased.....so much so that the coal fired monster is being shut down next year.........it could not compete with gas powered combined cycle and renewables.

Low cost production wins. Coal and nuclear power are dead.....not just dead but dead, dead, dead. (at current level of technology)

But production was not our highest cost....it was transmission. And there is where we need more research. IMHO for every dollar we spend on electrical production and storage research we should spend $2 on electrical transmission research. Ultra low loss or no loss electrical transmission is the holy grail. It practically eliminates all the production and storage problems we are grappling with today. It sure would be a game changer. I hope to see it yet in my lifetime.

[nwdiver]

Spending a lot of time in a prior iteration of life as a peddler taught me a lot. One why is human nature. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, with most of the perception/hopes in ways that tend to make life easier for them.
Manipulation of peoples' minds is usually a matter of tailoring the message so their perception of your message is one of benefit to them , but really to yours.

??? I worked in nuclear power for 15 years. I left a $100k+ job I somewhat enjoyed because it felt pointless. I would love nothing more than for nuclear power to be cost effective and productive. Sadly it's not. It's 6x more expensive than wind or solar. When I left the industry it was 4x. By 2030 it will probably be 10x more expensive .

What exactly do you think is manipulation? Stating the fact that new nuclear is 15x more per kW vs renewables? Stating that new nuclear is 6x more per kWh?

[J.P.M.]

I'm just sick of BILLIONS being wasted on nuclear boondoggles and it seems like no one cares. It's like battered wife syndrome. 'I know I've assaulted you 37 times before but this time is different... I swear'. And we keep going back for more... WHY?

Spending a lot of time in a prior iteration of life as a peddler taught me a lot. One why is human nature. People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, with most of the perception/hopes in ways that tend to make life easier for them.
Manipulation of peoples' minds is usually a matter of tailoring the message so their perception of your message is one of benefit to them , but really to yours.

[nwdiver]

I agree. I am not sure I understand the argument that we don't need storage until we get more renewables installed.

Where does the energy to charge the batteries come from? Why divert a GWh into a battery to reduce fools fuel use by 900MWh later when you can just reduce fools fuel use by 1GWh now? You need surplus renewable energy for storage to really make any sense. There are niche applications for grid services like peak shaving but you really need frequent renewable curtailment.

There are two sides of a battery equation. Energy goes in > Energy comes out. The situation on the grid needs to make sense on BOTH ends of that equation. Until you have frequent surpluses of wind, solar (Or nuclear) there really aren't many times when it makes economic sense to charge a battery.

[Ampster]

I'm just sick of BILLIONS being wasted on nuclear boondoggles ..........

I agree. I am not sure I understand the argument that we don't need storage until we get more renewables installed. I am focused on California because that is where the recent grid capacity shortages have shown up. I do recall you saying that some of that could be managed with DER. If you mean by adjusting behavior I would also agree. Economics has made the construction of peakers less profitable compared to energy storage at least in California. Combined cycle can now ramp much quicker than the old fashioned steam plants so there is some hope that the limited capacity of batteries can make a difference.