ALT.Energy

San Diego became an interesting test bed for the future of solar power. The California Public Utilities Commission on June 17th denied Chula Vista a permit for a proposed peaker plant...claiming that the alternative of thousands of rooftop solar systems may be a viable alternative to the gas turbine project.

This ruling will set the stage for every utility going forward to now spend more money to study why solar is or isn't a viable alternative for every new generation plant in the state. You need a new baseloaded combined cycle gas turbine? DENIED. First prove that the installation of 11,350 rooftop PV systems along with a football stadium-sized 265 MW 8-hour rated battery bank (in case the sun ain't shinin' that day) isn't a viable alternative.

Dan Fink has spent a lifetime developing a viable alt.energy solution to those living off the grid, but I am constantly pulled back into the reality of our Merika that couldn't give a rat's ass about where their electricity comes from so long as it "comes from" anytime they want it. Wind and solar power are not valid energy sources against the backdrop of this nation's electric consumers in my opinion. You think my neighbor would like to hear my 10-foot home wind turbine as he's enjoying a fine Bordeaux in his backyard? You think our nation's homeowner's associations are going to allow retrofitted PV systems to fuck up all those majestic mountain-esque rooflines in their communities? You don't think that neighbors across this great land won't burn an owner in effigy because he puts his laundry out to dry that's visible to the neighbors?

My own PV system and solar shares, first of all, barely manages 60% of my own usage and second of all, 100% of it is backed up by installed utility capacity because I want power all the damn time. My installed capacity cannot yet even cover my peak load, so even if I could get 100% of my energy, I'd still need utility power to cover the peak.

And this is where I really question the idea that rooftop PV can displace the building of that Chula Vista peaking plant. The argument says that on days when the peaker is needed the sun has to be shining, or else it wouldn't have been needed in the first place. This is a compelling argument, until you stop to consider that generation can be used in myriad ways outside of just meeting peak demand. Maximum solar incidence does not correspond with peak loads in all cases. Insolation is still a huge obstacle...some of the heaviest electrical consumption days in SMUD have occurred with high humidity combined with cloud cover. So, you say, just install additional PV capacity to account for it. OK. But take note that a peaker plant can provide operating reserve, something that PV or wind can never do. PV will produce when it's sunny, wind when it's windy, yes, but what happens when your coal-fired baseloaded plant trips off line? You gonna ask God to make the wind blow harder? Will Jesus part the skies to let more sun in? You gonna ask consumers to back off their power demand? Yeah, good luck...you'd have an easier time convincing God to produce more.

If we could couple demand side management with renewables it might just work. We would have to have a public willing to go without AC for a coupla hours every so often for the sake of a lost resource or cloud cover, but in my opinion this is something that our nation's citizens will never sign onto. Yeah, it sounds good on paper, but the first day you implement a forced load reduction is the day state legislators will be signing into law the fast-tracking of new peaker plants.

To prove this last point, consider that I and thousands of other SMUD customers are paid $5 per month so that SMUD has the right to cycle our air conditioners in the event that demand outstrips supply. To date it has never been used; not because it wouldn't have been beneficial or cost effective but because the policy ramifications of cycling suggest that you'll only be able to do it once. It's like the guy who joins the Army Reserves for the college benefits but says 'fuck that' when told to go to war -- the second we use it we'll lose 60% enrollment if not more. A five dollar savings is not worth a few hours of unconfortableness. On top of that, you'd have to drop the five dollar payment and charge 15 dollars more if you rely on more expensive peaker PVs.

I don't think this will fly in my Merika.