Make a Power Move?

[NW-Bound]

On the west coast, it is not the availability of electric power that is an issue (we wheel a lot from Oregon to California via the InterTie system from dams along the Columbia River) it is the distribution system. Actually the power lines and associated distribution costs are the most expensive, and capital intensive, part of operating local electric operations.

It doesn't matter, for discussion of the fires in CA, how the electricity was generated.

There is a looming shortage of power in CA in the years ahead. The California Public Utilities Commission has ordered utility companies to look for an additional 3.3 GW of power by 2021. That is the additional need projected for the summer when commuters get home in the late afternoon, and crank up their AC just as the solar production fades.

That power is equivalent to 3 nuclear plants. And CA is phasing out natural gas plants. I guess they look to import from neighbor states. However, with CA being a western state, the sun will be already setting in other states. Does the wind pick up elsewhere at that time, in order to get that power?

I like green power, but in order to use more renewable energy, it will have to be rationed. No AC for you. And no charging EV at any time other than late morning and midday.

 

[brewer12345]

So they want to outsource their emissions and claim to be green?

 

[ERD50]

So they want to outsource their emissions and claim to be green?

They are already doing it. It worked so well (PR-wise), they plan to do more.

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

It's not just California. We've done that as an entire country. For all the cheap stuff sold at Walmart and Harbor Freight in the USA, the pollution resulting from its manufacture goes into the atmosphere in China.

 

[ERD50]

It's not just California. We've done that as an entire country. For all the cheap stuff sold at Walmart and Harbor Freight in the USA, the pollution resulting from its manufacture goes into the atmosphere in China.

That's true, but I think the difference is that no one brags that they are saving the planet when they buy something from Walmart or Harbor Freight.

You might say that only the results matter. But if the average person hears that CA is going green, they might think the problem is solved, rather than moved. They might then be complacent, and not push towards greater improvement. These "feel good" initiatives can be counter-productive.

Another "feel-good" initiative appears to be the Paris Climate Accord. It gives China (clearly a big part of CO2 emissions) a lot of leeway:


https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/China,_India,_and_the_Paris_Climate_Agreement

In its nationally determined contribution, China forecast it would reach peak emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2030, at the latest. This means that China will not reduce CO2 emissions, on net, until after 2030, unless it peaks earlier.

If we want improvements from China, we are going to have to put some teeth into some agreement.

In the mean time, US has been decreasing GHG emissions since 2007 ( I understand this is largely due to moving from coal to NG) -

https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2017/10/trend-in-us-ghg-emissions-2017-01.png


-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

It's not just California. We've done that as an entire country. For all the cheap stuff sold at Walmart and Harbor Freight in the USA, the pollution resulting from its manufacture goes into the atmosphere in China.

Outsourcing your emissions and telling the rest of the country how to live like them is a special kind of moral bankruptcy.

 

[Gumby]

Another "feel-good" initiative appears to be the Paris Climate Accord. It gives China (clearly a big part of CO2 emissions) a lot of leeway:


https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/China,_India,_and_the_Paris_Climate_Agreement



If we want improvements from China, we are going to have to put some teeth into some agreement.

-ERD50

But that's the very hypocrisy I was talking about. If we shift all our pollution intensive manufacturing to China (while still using the products here in the US) how can we complain that China is not cutting emissions? We have just exported our emissions to China. If we want China to cut emissions, we should buy less of our stuff from there.

 

[NW-Bound]

... We have just exported our emissions to China. If we want China to cut emissions, we should buy less of our stuff from there.

If we want to cut the world's total emissions, we have to use less "stuff". And that is anathema to people.

I have been thinking, using the experience with my own DIY solar+battery system, that if I could live in a tiny house, I would be able to be off-grid, and still have my AC. And I will have enough excess energy to charge an EV to take it out for a spin once a week to buy grocery.

 

[Gumby]

If we want to cut the world's total emissions, we have to use less "stuff". And that is anathema to people.

Exactly.

 

[MichaelB]

China and India are still in the “middle industrial” phase of economic development, like we were over a half century ago, and their material standard of living is still far below ours. Is it fair that we impose standards (pollution and consumption) on them that we did not follow when we were at that stage of development?

 

[NW-Bound]

Back on California's peak power demand, I am sure that large lithium storage systems will be included in the solution mix. Lithium batteries are nice, and I have a total of 25 kWh of storage myself (22 kWh in the home system, 3 kWh in the motorhome). The problem is the cost.

Tesla claims one of the largest installations of battery. The Hornsdale Project in South Australia provides 129 MWh of storage, at the peak rate of 100 MW. The cost is not disclosed, but is said to be up to $100M.

See: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018...st-revealed-two-years-after-blackout/10310680

Another technology in use is storing thermal energy with molten salt (sodium and potassium nitrates). This is implemented in the Solana plant in AZ, which has been operating since 2013, stores 1680 MWh with delivery of 280 MW peak. The cost is $2 billion. This appears high compared to lithium battery storage, but we have to consider that it is also a solar plant and generates its own power to distribute during the day as well as storage for night use.

 

[NW-Bound]

China and India are still in the “middle industrial” phase of economic development, like we were over a half century ago, and their material standard of living is still far below ours. Is it fair that we impose standards (pollution and consumption) on them that we did not follow when we were at that stage of development?

And Brazil is still chopping down trees to gain agricultural land.

I read that Ohio used to be all forested. This is probably true for most of the US east of the Mississippi. It has been cleared out for farming long ago.

 

[travelover]

China and India are still in the “middle industrial” phase of economic development, like we were over a half century ago, and their material standard of living is still far below ours. Is it fair that we impose standards (pollution and consumption) on them that we did not follow when we were at that stage of development?

No, it is not fair, but if one dare entertain that the Chinese hoax is, in fact, real then charging on as before makes no sense to anyone.

 

[Gumby]

I read that Ohio used to be all forested. This is probably true for most of the US east of the Mississippi. It has been cleared out for farming long ago.

The land can be reforested, it just takes a few hundred years. Agriculture largely left Connecticut in the early 19th century. We are back to about 55% forest coverage now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_and_territory_in_the_United_States

 

[HFWR]

If we want to cut the world's total emissions, we have to use less "stuff". And that is anathema to people.

Not only that. The entire global economic and political system is, in many ways, dependent on continued growth. Witness the handwringing and resulting extraordinary monetary policies caused by the fear/reality of deflation. If we stop making and selling widgets, doodads, and tchotchkes, the whole thing collapses.

 

[NW-Bound]

Back on California's peak power demand, I am sure that large lithium storage systems will be included in the solution mix. Lithium batteries are nice, and I have a total of 25 kWh of storage myself (22 kWh in the home system, 3 kWh in the motorhome). The problem is the cost.

Tesla claims one of the largest installations of battery. The Hornsdale Project in South Australia provides 129 MWh of storage, at the peak rate of 100 MW. The cost is not disclosed, but is said to be up to $100M.

See: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018...st-revealed-two-years-after-blackout/10310680

Another technology in use is storing thermal energy with molten salt (sodium and potassium nitrates). This is implemented in the Solana plant in AZ, which has been operating since 2013, stores 1680 MWh with delivery of 280 MW peak. The cost is $2 billion. This appears high compared to lithium battery storage, but we have to consider that it is also a solar plant and generates its own power to distribute during the day as well as storage for night use.

The cost for lithium storage turns out to be roughly $1/Wh, discharging over 1 hour for the above Australia project.

At the personal level, the Tesla Powerwall is also about that cost. There's not much gained with economy of scale. Perhaps the grid connection for a large storage facility is costly, compared to a home transfer switch.

Thinking about this, if California wants to solve the 3.3 GW additional demand using battery storage, it will need to spend $3.3 billion dollars to get that peak power for 1 hour.

How expensive is that? Out of curiosity, I looked up CA generation capacity, and it is 195 TWh in 2018. At the average retail price of 17c/kWh in CA, that's $33 billion. So, the battery to satisfy the demand peak adds another 10%, and that is tolerable, if the alternative is a rolling black out.

I wonder if there is enough battery production capacity in the next few years to build the equivalent of several hundreds of the South Australian storage station that Musk has done. Can the Chinese build enough batteries to help?

By the way, what's that 3.3 GW of additional demand relative to what being used now? It's about 6% above the current peak rate of 50 GW.

 

[ERD50]

But that's the very hypocrisy I was talking about. If we shift all our pollution intensive manufacturing to China (while still using the products here in the US) how can we complain that China is not cutting emissions? We have just exported our emissions to China. If we want China to cut emissions, we should buy less of our stuff from there.

Its a problem for sure, but I'm not sure that rises to the level of "hypocrisy". There aren't a lot of options to buy from US manufactured sources for much of that.

It would be hypocrisy if I said I won't pay extra, if that is what is needed for China to clean up it's act. And if they did clean up their act, maybe US mfg would be more competitive. That's why I say the Paris Accord is so disappointing, it doesn't push China to do much at all for another 10 years.

I just see that as far different from CA 'bragging' about their clean grid, and then importing not-so-clean energy to make up.

China and India are still in the “middle industrial” phase of economic development, like we were over a half century ago, and their material standard of living is still far below ours. Is it fair that we impose standards (pollution and consumption) on them that we did not follow when we were at that stage of development?

No, it is not fair, but if one dare entertain that the Chinese hoax is, in fact, real then charging on as before makes no sense to anyone.

I agree with travelover. "Fair" is almost always a tricky thing. And maybe it isn't "fair" to ask China to reduce emissions that we already sent out to the atmosphere. But if you want solutions, it looks like China has to change. I don't see how to get around that.

I guess a parallel would be that some companies used ingredients that we now know to be harmful. If they didn't know at the time, we can't really blame them. But maybe they made a fortunes on those products.

Do we now say it's OK for a start-up company to use those dangerous ingredients, to be "fair", so they can catch up economically to the old company? Of course not.

Times change, we need to change with them.

-ERD50

 

[Gumby]

Its a problem for sure, but I'm not sure that rises to the level of "hypocrisy". There aren't a lot of options to buy from US manufactured sources for much of that.

It would be hypocrisy if I said I won't pay extra, if that is what is needed for China to clean up it's act.

I'm not saying the hyprocrisy is yours, ERD. It is the American consumers', because they, in fact, won't pay more to buy things made in the USA and subject to our environmental laws and regulations (among other things).

 

[ERD50]

I'm not saying the hyprocrisy is yours, ERD. It is the American consumers', because they, in fact, won't pay more to buy things made in the USA and subject to our environmental laws and regulations (among other things).

Fine, but I don't know that it is so much that American consumers won't pay more to buy things made in the USA, there just often isn't much of a choice. You can say that the choices aren't there because so many sought cheap goods, there is no doubt some circular action there.

And w/o some real knowledge of the environmental impact of their choice, I don't think you can blame people too much for looking at price. If we had two products on the same shelf, with that info, I bet many would make the environmental choice.

We see plenty of it in fact. People pay more for organic produce, even though that's not a clear win. We have "Free Trade" coffee, chocolate, and I know I've paid more for some of those.

I wonder how much some reasonable regulation would add to the price of Chinese goods? I bet many/most consumers would be willing to pay, if it was clearly laid out for them.

Part of the resistance to some Gov't regs here in the US, is not so much the cost of compliance, it is the complexity and time to get permits. Time is money. I think much of the advantage for China is they can get things done so much faster, and I'd bet they could get 80% better, with not so much effort and cost (the Pareto Principle).

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

I agree with travelover. "Fair" is almost always a tricky thing. And maybe it isn't "fair" to ask China to reduce emissions that we already sent out to the atmosphere. But if you want solutions, it looks like China has to change. I don't see how to get around that.

I guess a parallel would be that some companies used ingredients that we now know to be harmful. If they didn't know at the time, we can't really blame them. But maybe they made a fortunes on those products.

Do we now say it's OK for a start-up company to use those dangerous ingredients, to be "fair", so they can catch up economically to the old company? Of course not.

Times change, we need to change with them.

Dictating to developing countries they aren’t free to use resources as we did isn’t changing, it’s telling others to change while imposing limits on how they improve their standard of living, limits that we aren’t willing to accept for ourselves. That’s never going to work.

No, it is not fair, but if one dare entertain that the Chinese hoax is, in fact, real then charging on as before makes no sense to anyone.

Totally agree. It also makes no sense to stand in the way of a Brazilian farmer trying to improve his lot in life by clearing forests for agriculture. We need to look harder for a way to reconcile those differing objectives.

 

[NW-Bound]

They don't mind breathing all that air pollution first themselves before any other country.

 

[NW-Bound]

Come to think more of it, the above photo of China looks pretty nice, compared to that of Pittsburgh, and then Britain in the late 19th/early 20th century.

 

[aja8888]

Come to think more of it, the above photo of China looks pretty nice, compared to that of Pittsburgh, and then Britain in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Yeah, white smoke out of a stack or cooling unit may easily be just steam. That black stuff in the above photos is probably soot on the form of particulates from coal or fuel oil heaters or boilers.

 

[NW-Bound]

Even today, some Eastern European countries still burn coal for cooking and heating. When you are freezing your buns off and don't have any choice, what else can you do?

 

[mpeirce]

Yeah, white smoke out of a stack or cooling unit may easily be just steam.

It's really odd that so often photos of "terrible pollution" are just a picture of cooling towers with steam coming out the top. I see it all the time.