California electric power on the ragged edge
As you may remember in may the NERC, the National Electrical Reliablility Council issued a press release announcing that generation and transmission resources are expected to be adequate in most areas this summer. Today's New York Times has a story about the close call in California yesterday. Available electrical capacity dropped near 3% reserve in the afternoon, leading to concern CAISO would need to declare a "stage three emergency" and begin controlled rolling blackouts across california. http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/080300ca-power.html In June, PG&E used rolling blackouts around the San Francisco Bay area.
This is an affect of electric deregulation. This is very little incentive for any power company to build generating capacity to absorb these peaks. The rolling blackouts are spread between the customers of all power companies so any one company can't benefit. Its going to get a lot worse. Sean Donelan wrote:
As you may remember in may the NERC, the National Electrical Reliablility Council issued a press release announcing that generation and transmission resources are expected to be adequate in most areas this summer.
Today's New York Times has a story about the close call in California yesterday. Available electrical capacity dropped near 3% reserve in the afternoon, leading to concern CAISO would need to declare a "stage three emergency" and begin controlled rolling blackouts across california.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/080300ca-power.html
In June, PG&E used rolling blackouts around the San Francisco Bay area.
garlic@garlic.com said:
This is an affect of electric deregulation. This is very little incentive for any power company to build generating capacity to absorb these peaks.
I'm not a particular fan of the effects of electricity deregulation, but you first and second statements have no causal relationship between them. It isn't hard to think of different billing structures and electricity grid and futures markets which make these things more economically sensible. It /may/ have been a result of how deregulation was implemented. -- Alex Bligh VP Core Network, Concentric Network Corporation (formerly GX Networks, Xara Networks)
Deregualtion only favored the industry and the prices have not gone down or are even competitive for the consumer or business. The same crappy service exists and power is sold out of state to other interezts and impacts the lives of 33 million people in 48 counties in the most ruthless manipulative manner under the sun. Alex Bligh wrote:
garlic@garlic.com said:
This is an affect of electric deregulation. This is very little incentive for any power company to build generating capacity to absorb these peaks.
I'm not a particular fan of the effects of electricity deregulation, but you first and second statements have no causal relationship between them. It isn't hard to think of different billing structures and electricity grid and futures markets which make these things more economically sensible. It /may/ have been a result of how deregulation was implemented.
-- Alex Bligh VP Core Network, Concentric Network Corporation (formerly GX Networks, Xara Networks)
-- Thank you; |--------------------------------| | Thinking is a learned process. | | ICANN member @large | | Gigabit over IP, ieee 802.17 | |--------------------------------| Henry R. Linneweh
Not really. All the power plants that do or do not exist in California are the result of the prior years of planning (under regulation) and not result of the very recent deregulation. Deregulation does not change the laws of physics so that power plants spring into existance during peak loads. heh. ;) On the other hand, the rate hikes in San Diego are the result of deregulation. As a long time resident of California witnessing the virtual inability of PG&E to build new power plants due to various interest groups: pick one or more 1) dam a picturesque valley 2) go nuclear or 3) burn fossil fuels. Holding your breath? I didn't think so. The only way very many power plants will get built is if we have more rolling blackouts... On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Roy wrote:
This is an affect of electric deregulation. This is very little incentive for any power company to build generating capacity to absorb these peaks. The rolling blackouts are spread between the customers of all power companies so any one company can't benefit. Its going to get a lot worse.
Sean Donelan wrote:
As you may remember in may the NERC, the National Electrical Reliablility Council issued a press release announcing that generation and transmission resources are expected to be adequate in most areas this summer.
Today's New York Times has a story about the close call in California yesterday. Available electrical capacity dropped near 3% reserve in the afternoon, leading to concern CAISO would need to declare a "stage three emergency" and begin controlled rolling blackouts across california.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/080300ca-power.html
In June, PG&E used rolling blackouts around the San Francisco Bay area.
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
I sent a half hour at IETF or so learning some of this from Phil Karn, an old friend who lives in San Diego. The capacity of the transmission lines into southern Cal is the limiting factor. There's power out there (in various places), but no incentive for PG&E to carry it. It's virtually impossible for a "competitor" to add capacity, as right of way for power lines is even worse than for fiber. The cost of power is passed right to the customer. There's no incentive for PG&E to find lower cost power; thus, the bid price is either very low (at night, maybe not even covering the cost of production), or at the peak allowed (50 cents per kilowatt hour), in an obvious step function. (Such a high price would cause riots in the heartland states.) In short, the microeconomist's wetdream (demand bidding) simply doesn't work without hundreds of competitors, cost containment on the distributor and a low barrier to entry, none of which apply. Meanwhile, Phil has added another 16 solar panels and more batteries, and is selling power back to the grid. Buy low, sell high! PG&E is not happy, and wants to change the rules for microgenerators -- the very thing that could add competition! (Phil already had solar panels and batteries for his EV1. See his web pages at http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/pv/pv.html. Barriers to entry without such a motivation might be higher.) WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
wsimpson@greendragon.com said:
The capacity of the transmission lines into southern Cal is the limiting factor. There's power out there (in various places), but no incentive for PG&E to carry it. It's virtually impossible for a "competitor" to add capacity, as right of way for power lines is even worse than for fiber.
FWIW this is the justification many regulators elsewhere (i.e. not in the US) gave for what I guess is the power/water/gas equivalent of 'local loop unbundling' (I can by my electricity from about 10 people here, though they all use the same transmission system), and keeping the grid separate from the supply company. Larger customers (data centers) can indeed use separate transmission arrangements if appropriate. The subway system here does deals power deals in London with dig (it self generates too), and so do various other slightly unexpected utilities. -- Alex Bligh VP Core Network, Concentric Network Corporation (formerly GX Networks, Xara Networks)
[ On Friday, August 4, 2000 at 12:19:05 (+0100), Alex Bligh wrote: ]
Subject: Re: California electric power on the ragged edge
FWIW this is the justification many regulators elsewhere (i.e. not in the US) gave for what I guess is the power/water/gas equivalent of 'local loop unbundling' (I can by my electricity from about 10 people here, though they all use the same transmission system), and keeping the grid separate from the supply company.
As is the case here in Ontario, Canada (as of this year). We now get sales goofs from all kinds of new "energy" companies knocking on our doors and trying to use scare tactics to get us to sign up with them. I think we may even have something similar happening with natural gas, though there the primary supplier (Consumers Gas) is literally well embedded in most Ontario cities. When large utilities were all government owned here it didn't make much difference, but with privitisation all the rage something had to be done in such a way to allow industry to participate without totally screwing the consumer. What I'm as yet unsure of is what this scheme does to affect the ability of individuals to generate power and sell it to the grid. Since here in Ontario it seems the grid will continue to be owned by the government owned power company, policitcal will can make it possible. Of course there's always the possibility of forming a big enough co-operative amongst microgenerators to represent their cause to the big bad grid owners. Interestingly I see in my APC Solutions product magazine that arrived this morning that California was already 3% undercapacitly in terms of generation in 1995, and will be 6% under in this year. In fact the map printed in there ("source: Computesite", whatever that is) almost all of the USA, except for the North West, was already under capacity in 1995 and is most certainly well under capacity now (presumably they mean for peak load periods). All I can say to you Americans on the list is "Want to buy a few new Candu reactors?" :-) The only other realistic solution I can see is for the *average* person and company to start considering generating at least some of their own power.
Larger customers (data centers) can indeed use separate transmission arrangements if appropriate. The subway system here does deals power deals in London with dig (it self generates too), and so do various other slightly unexpected utilities.
Would it make sense for a datacentre in Sunny Calif. to become its own generating facility and of course to resell its excess power back to the grid? Burning diesel to generate electricity is obviously not cost effective nor is it environmentally friendly when done in any concentration, but perhaps a sufficiently large bank of solar panels and some wind power on the roof too, as well as a big enough bank of batteries would allow someone to buy only cheap power overnight to top up the batteries while the sun doesn't shine, selling excess generation capacity back to the grid when the sun shines bright while the wind blows! I don't know what the economics of building a battery bank that big are though, not to mention the zoning regulations on having big sun and wind collectors might be.... -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
Greg A. Woods Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 7:58 AM
[ On Friday, August 4, 2000 at 12:19:05 (+0100), Alex Bligh wrote: ]
Subject: Re: California electric power on the ragged edge
Larger customers (data centers) can indeed use separate transmission arrangements if appropriate. The subway system here does deals power deals in London with dig (it self generates too), and so do various other slightly unexpected utilities.
Would it make sense for a datacentre in Sunny Calif. to become its own generating facility and of course to resell its excess power back to the grid? Burning diesel to generate electricity is obviously not cost effective nor is it environmentally friendly when done in any concentration, but perhaps a sufficiently large bank of solar panels and some wind power on the roof too, as well as a big enough bank of batteries would allow someone to buy only cheap power overnight to top up the batteries while the sun doesn't shine, selling excess generation capacity back to the grid when the sun shines bright while the wind blows! I don't know what the economics of building a battery bank that big are though, not to mention the zoning regulations on having big sun and wind collectors might be....
Wouldn't work. Many have the large battery packs in their UPS systems. However, every Kwh you sell back reduces your power-fail reserves by that same amount. You would actually have to over-build reserve capacity in order to do this and still survive a power outage. Wind and solar power options are geo-physically dependent. In the Altamount pass, the windmills don't turn all the time and they use huge tracts of acreage. In the Silly-cone valley, most of them wouldn't run at all, ever. By the same token solar panels, for a data center, eat up much more square footage than is available (although covering every roof-top with solar panels might really add credence to the name "Silicon Valley"). In most other parts of the country, they have far too many cloudy hours, reducing duty-cycles substantially. There is also the issue of remembering what the core business is and avoiding dilution of efforts.
[ On Friday, August 4, 2000 at 08:25:49 (-0700), Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: ]
Subject: RE: California electric power on the ragged edge
Wouldn't work. Many have the large battery packs in their UPS systems. However, every Kwh you sell back reduces your power-fail reserves by that same amount. You would actually have to over-build reserve capacity in order to do this and still survive a power outage.
That's what I meant -- build enough battery capacity so that not only do you only need to buy cheap power (eg. at night) but you can also survive overnight without any power if necessary. You still might end up buying some expensive power, but on average that would be offset by your ability to sell power back to the grid in times of plenty (i.e. when the wind blows and the sun shines!).
Wind and solar power options are geo-physically dependent. In the Altamount pass, the windmills don't turn all the time and they use huge tracts of acreage. In the Silly-cone valley, most of them wouldn't run at all, ever.
Oh well -- moving a datacentre to the top of a windy hill isn't going to fly either.... :-)
By the same token solar panels, for a data center, eat up much more square footage than is available
That's why you need multiple sources.....
(although covering every roof-top with solar panels might really add credence to the name "Silicon Valley").
now that's a good idea!
There is also the issue of remembering what the core business is and avoiding dilution of efforts.
If the core business has as one of it's core requirements a secure source of energy then that is your business too. If you can't buy such a secure supply from the local utilities then you're definitely going to have to consider other ways of creating it yourself. Here in the north central part of Toronto I've had my UPS' kick in at most once per year. However if I were in some mostly residential parts of any community in the outlying regions I'd probably have to have a generator to backup the UPS, and it's beginning to look like those of you in Sunny California are going to have to go even one step further and operate your own more reliable long-term generating facilities. If things get really bad then you might even be able to run them 24x7 during some times of year and sell your excess power back (or to your neighbours) at a profit even if it is from diesel! -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
participants (8)
-
Alex Bligh -
Henry R. Linneweh -
Mike Leber -
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
Roy -
Sean Donelan -
William Allen Simpson -
woods＠weird.com