> The power grid is also grappling with supply chain and worker shortage problems that have cause some power facilities to delay or cancel maintenance aimed at getting the system primed for summer. Specifically, NERC warned that low inventories of replacement transformers could derail efforts to restart power facilities following hurricanes and severe storms.
> “The intermittent nature of wind power (wind turbines only generate electricity if the wind is blowing, and how much electricity they generate depends on how windy it is) present operational challenges for grid operators,” analysts from the US Energy Information Administration wrote in a report on Monday. “Low wind and high demand periods could result in energy emergencies.”
> Wind plays a central role in meeting demand in Texas as well as the two power grid regions that cover most of the central part of the United States. Drought conditions and low levels of major reservoirs could also hurt hydro power generation.
> NERC also flagged concerns about new environmental rules that restrict power plant emissions, warning these regulations will limit the operation of coal-fired generators in 23 states, including Nevada, Utah and states along the Gulf Coast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. This is the first summer since the implementation of the EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan, which aims to reduce cross-state smog from power plants and other industrial sites.
This is pretty clearly regulation/environmentalist caused. Not that we shouldn't pursue a climate friendly grid, but we're not there yet and forcing the timeline is causing creaks and issues.
Again, political realities don’t allow for nuclear in the US. The best that could get accomplished is that we start regulating how much pollution you spit out like in the above referenced “Good Neighbor” plan because all but the craziest libertarian types at least begrudgingly acknowledge that you shouldn’t be able to throw trash on someone else’s lawn
I mean.... daily blackouts vs nuclear... which kind of a politician would you want to be?
Yes, some people are stupid, a lot of "the greens" included here, but choosing unreliable and unstable power sources while demanding more power use (ban on ICE cars, ban on burning stuff for heat and cooking, etc.), is well.. stupid too.
> I mean.... daily blackouts vs nuclear... which kind of a politician would you want to be?
Apparently you’re missing some context since nearly every politician is risking daily blackouts vs ramping up nuclear production.
Do you think that every single one is mistaking what will go over well with the people or that there is maybe a political issue that changes the calculus that you are either undervaluing or have missed entirely?
Edit: I didn’t even engage with your question correctly. That’s a false dichotomy. The politicians are banking that moving us towards renewables with its associated risks is a better path forward than moving us towards nuclear with its associated risks. Moving to a new energy paradigm like nuclear also could come with the risk of “daily blackouts” as whatever that migration would look like plays out. It’s not a “risky” choice vs a “risk-free” choice
Saying that this is regulation / environmentalist caused is only looking at half of the picture.
You could just as easily say that this is caused by greed and the desire for more profits. Wind power is extremely cheap (almost half the cost per megawatt hour compared to fossil fuel). So utilities are actually making more money when they sell their customers wind power. Where is the profit margin going? Not back into the infrastructure, that's for sure.
In every major outage the true cause is utility companies not investing back into making sure that their infrastructure is resilient. That includes resiliency against wind power going offline, such as building battery storage, gravity power storage, etc.
Yes, and regulation prevents them for charging the true cost for peak/constrained energy demand (except in texas where you can get a $16,752 for running your lights)
Naturally theres a wide spectrum of options between fixed prices and dynamic pricing that leads to shocking results.
Your comment is completely unrealistic. The battery supply chain doesn't produce enough for grid scale storage. It will be many years until that is practical. Gravity power storage holds promise, but outside of a few limited pumped hydroelectric facilities it remains unproven.
You've got to be kidding. The quantities needed for grid scale storage are orders of magnitude larger than smartphones. We are up against fundamental supply chain limits. Production can be ramped up but that will be a slow process.
So let's treat this like the environmental emergency it is and put some real resources and effort behind it. Growing up I was told we were the best at building things when we really want to.
We can "force the timeline" on the machinery and infrastructure that we control, or nature will force the timeline on the environmental factors we can't control. All the extreme weather is showing the latter is already happening.
No, it's not. This is regulated industry insiders complaining about the impact of regulations on them--of course they're going to forecast doom and gloom.
Actually reading the details of the report, I don't think the power plant emissions regulations is actually a major impact; it seems that the lower efficiencies of power plants during extreme heat waves is having more of an impact on potential shortfalls rather than emissions cutoff. Except maybe for Texas, but Texas in general looks extremely screwed regardless.
Links to detailed analyses can be found in the link above.
Key notes:
"... overall, the North American bulk power system (BPS) remains highly reliable and resilient. However, extreme weather events continue to pose the greatest risk to its reliability and stability"
"Today’s BPS transmission system is continuing to show improvements in reliability and resilience, despite more common and extreme weather trends. However, higher overall outage rates for coal and gas generation, as well as some utility-scale solar generation not operating as necessary for reliability, indicate that there is still significant work to be accomplished"
"In 2022, conventional generation experienced its highest level of unavailability (8.5%) overall since NERC began gathering GADS data in 2013 as measured by the weighted equivalent forced outage rate. Figure 3 shows consistently increasing outage rates for coal over the observed five years, correlating with higher numbers of startups and maintenance outages."
Yes, there are issues to contend with when implementing new power sources. But those issues are nothing compared to the lack of investment in infrastructure more generally.
Are there no workers? Or no money? So a lack of educated people (electricians, electrical engineers) in the country? Or do those people get paid more to flip burgers and do other stuff?
There are no workers for the the desired amount of money (and a lack in the trades). The US has
- The Baby Boomers reaching Medicare + Social Security eligibility age.
- An Intransitive stance on immigration, leading to fewer workers, and especially an inability to hire trained workers
- Migrated from trades education ~30 years ago in favor of college preparatory
- Historically low unemployment (likely from the other factors)
- A very difficult to navigate minimum wage, costs of goods trap; where the dog food store near me is hiring at $15/hr; while a nearby alterations place was looking for a trained head seamstress for $10/hr, and grocery chains and Amazon are offering $30/hr warehouse jobs, while waitresses make $2.25 with little enforcement on tipped wages.
Boomers are going to have to suck it up and pay more taxes, or leave at which point we should exit tax them. They soaked up all the opportunities, and voted themselves no taxes, and promised themselves trillions of dollars their grandkids productivity.
It's time to start hunting and punishing those who pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage (I dont think we should bother trying to fight illegal immigration against the immigrants, punish the citizens who are breaking their local laws ie paying too little)
>Historically low unemployment (likely from the other factors)
I actually think this is more about the historically low amount of folks participating in the economy. A lot of these bureau stats only consider folks who want a job. But what is also really eye opening is the percent of the population who does some work. That number is hitting 40yr lows, and approaching numbers seen in 50/60s when it was far less common for women to work.
Why does this matter? Imagine society has N hours of labor required to keep it functioning? If fewer people are willing to work, then the remaining worker pool must do more hours of work (or become far more productive).
Personally, I would disagree. The utility companies have had notice for quite some time that they are have very real capacity issues. However, the cost of bringing new generation on line is not worth it to them. They would rather keep things as is, and then ask customers to cut back, or issue rolling outages if they don't. Take the infamous Texas freeze as example where the utilities were recommended to take steps to protect against freezes, but they decided it was not worth the expense.
There's a difference between equipment and generating capabilities. Failed transformers are an issue, but it's not new. Not being able to meet demand is also not new, but it's only going to continue to be an increasing problem
Yep, and regulators demanding even more demand with their policies (eg. ban on ICE cars coming soon, random bans on non-electric heating, cooking, etc.).
edit: sure, downvote, but mandated increased demand without infrastructure first is a recipe for failure.
You are not wrong. Mandated shifts away from carbon-based energy systems always seem to fail to take into account the inherent increased demand on the power grid.
Maybe this will have positive long-term outcomes, if it results in more people taking climate change seriously and it leads to investing in alternative forms of energy generation?
Spending a few days suffering in the sweltering heat really makes you appreciate the magic of the AC and reliable access to power.
The biggest concern is whether people will end up dying because of this. I know there's places in the US where the heat is legitimately lethal.
if it results in more people taking climate change seriously and it leads to investing in alternative forms of energy generation
We're reaching breast cancer levels of awareness here. At this point, we're all aware of the issue and are actively voting to invest money in solving the problem. Awareness is no longer the problem.
Size doesn't matter, only political power. The chunk of the voter base that believes that stuff is also the chunk that currently plays kingmaker for half the american government. Their last president was literally a proponent of this idea.
>> We're reaching breast cancer levels of awareness here. At this point, we're all aware of the issue and are actively voting to invest money in solving the problem. Awareness is no longer the problem.
> I don't see a large chunk of the voter base pretending that breast cancer is a myth invented by the chinese to slow down America.
That's because the breast cancer hasn't led to the same kinds of policy proposals that climate change has. If it did, I'd expect you'd see similar claims of it being a myth, etc.
IMHO, claiming climate change is a myth is just a symptom of democratic opposition to certain climate change policies.
According to the article, this expectation is actually caused by "green" energy implementations and the shift to climate friendly infra. Mankind should be free to consume as much energy as it wants, but we need to focus on making that energy carbon neutral (or negative).
A quick google suggests that 173,000 terawatts of solar energy hits the earth continuously. If my googling and maths are correct, we're using 22k TWhr total meaning more energy hits the earth in 1 hour than we use annually.
Edit: plz do correct me on these maths if I'm off, i'm by no means an expert.
Yes, and the point is that we don't need to be constraining our consumption as there's essentially no lack of energy. We need to be increasing our production/capture.
Given the forces aligned against green energy, I don't want to say big oil, but well, big oil, I don't see why we should that that at face value. Sunshine is generally quite available during hot sunny days, so it seems like it should scale for providing energy to power AC units.
Peak AC demand in most areas is well after peak solar power production times. During the summer months AC demand often extends well after sunset.
To an extent we can use solar power generated in the western US to feed some of the later hours of AC demand in the east. But we can't do the reverse. And even the most optimistic estimates state that we are many years from having a useful amount of grid scale storage.
I typically leave my AC at 75f during daylight (when it's 100f ambient), but turn it down to 70 to sleep (when it's 85-90f ambient). So it's possible I'm actually ACing more or as much at night.
I appreciate AC enough that I bought a window unit and a gas powered generator to ensure that I don't have to do without. Probably not a net positive for the environment, but I do have tentative plans to switch it over to solar plus lithium iron phosphate battery. One nice thing about AC is that the need for it is pretty correlated with sunshine.
I froze in my 35 degree apartment for about 5 days a couple of years ago when the TX powergrid went out due to the unwinterized power grid. The state essentially did nothing, and the GOP politicians will easily get reelected who oversaw that disaster. The voting base isn't rational and these things won't move the needle.
Legitimately lethal heat doesn't even have to be in typically hot places or require a power outage to be lethal. In fact, the 2021 heatwave in Pacific Northwest[1] (which is known to have a moderate climate), was the deadliest weather event in Canadian history.
I don't know if increased AC installs have changed this, but I heard in the late 90s that heat waves were the single biggest killer among natural disasters (i.e. edging out floods, hurricanes, earthquakes &c.)
The best way to deal with this: install solar power on site to power the AC.
Make zero (or low) interest loans available to pay for it; the power companies could originate the loans and pay them back through the existing monthly payment system.
Everybody wins: people get cheaper/sustainable power, the grid load is eased, and the utilities can make money handling the money.
I've long held that, at least in developed countries, we should be ending unemployment insurance and moving to guaranteed employment and utilizing unemployed folks for public service projects such as solar installs.
Yes, of course not for disabled or high skilled folks who just need to transition. But for many many cases there's little reason to give someone hundreds per week for no work.
"we should be ending unemployment insurance and moving to guaranteed employment and utilizing unemployed folks for public service projects such as solar installs."
While I agree with that, it seems the implementation of a program like that would be quite difficult...especially considering how difficult it is to get pretty much anything done.
Are these new workers doing things that other union workers could be doing? Would they have to join the union? Those two simple things would derail any plan like that for one side of the isle in the US, at least.
I agree politically it's a hard change. I'm just speaking about ideal policies at this point.
Perhaps a wide retraining program offering. Something like "Hey you've been unemployed for 2 years, you're losing benefits starting (sometime). To help you along you can take a free solar installer course paid by the tax payer."
Ok, i guess I was unclear. By guaranteed work I simply meant that people had the choice still. Not forced slavery, but guaranteed optional work for pay, rather than paychecks for nothing.
I'm thinking national projects like hoover dam and interstate highway systems.
I think a better way to word it is, "hey, are you having a hard time finding a job? If so, we will give you one for the time being." Which Germany kinda does this to my understanding. If your having difficulty finding a job, the state will help find at least a temporary gig for you in the mean time.
Yes, I like this. At least in my experiences in USA / Canada, there's a lot of actually able bodied folks, doing nothing for pay. Even if it's not worth the money, they could at least partially contribute to the work of society by something as tiny as being part of a street cleaning crew, being a volunteer worker with a not for profit etc.
As i understand it having even a little work/contribution can help with holding off depression . It doesnt have to be 40hrs a week, but even a single day of work can help keep normalcy.
Counterintuitively, this wouldn’t be that great for the grid.
If millions of people stop paying monthly utility bills, electric utilities start to run in the red, or have to further raise rates while the grid further destabilizes. This is unfolding in real time in California and a few studies have come out showing that subsidized rooftop solar is doing more harm than good without utility-grade energy storage.
At least the rich people will have power. And if their solar and batteries are down for a while, they'll likely also have their own personal Generac whole-house automatic diesel, gas, or propane generator. Individuals who can afford it will have reliable power.
I snagged a Generac a few years ago, and never looked back; it runs off my gas line and takes zero input from me to work (although you can fiddle with it if you like). That's definitely where anyone with any money at all is going to end up, not just the rich.
The naive solution to the "people stop paying monthly utility bills" is to charge a high hook-up fee that covers that capital cost of baseload availability and then charge for marginal usage closer to marginal cost. Right now the baseload infrastructure is covered by artificially high costs for each marginal kilowatt-hour to slowly recoup the capital expense. The billing structure doesn't match the cost structure.
But that would make actual use effectively free and disincentivize conservation. So it's a hard problem to solve.
You could perhaps raise the effective price of solar by writing in high per-month fees for any houses with solar, but also waive those fees for homes which prove they have a substantial-enough battery solution to help ease demand on the grid during the relatively high-use hours of 5PM to 10PM.
IIRC the real costs of residential electricity are about half from infrastructure, half from actual energy consumption [1]. If we charged prices proportional to costs, high users would still pay significantly more than average users. The problem is that in many places these costs have been bundled together in a single "per unit" charge that effectively subsidizes the lowest consumers. Changing it so that prices go up at the low end of consumption and go down at the high end of consumption would widely be seen as unfair, so it's politically hard to correct the mis-pricing now that it's ossified into place by tradition.
[1] It's different for big industrial users, like factories operating 24/7; their per-unit costs are dominated by consumption rather than infrastructure. They also get lower prices partially reflecting these lower costs.
Thanks for the more detailed information. I double-checked and it seems you're right for the states I could find data for - industrial users have some extra per-month fees to cover the baseload made available to them (billed per kW rather than per kWh) but these don't offset the far lower rates per kWh that I found.
There is often a difference between "industrial" vs. "commercial" but both seem to pay lower rates than residential.
I wish I had the source for the stats, but I remember reading that a significant percentage (call it more than 1/8th of the total budget) of a electric utilities budget could be spent on -just- tree trimming services. This was discussed in the context of investments by a electric utility to decrease downtime during a storm, and how the (large) investments in the 12mos for tree trimming services is what allowed for so little downtime.
I can't square away this statement with the fact that all of the major electric utilities in California, and especially in southern California, are logging record-breaking profits and issuing record-breaking dividends.
I realize that in your scenario we're talking about millions of people no longer paying utility bills, but surely that could not and would not happen overnight, and I cannot imagine that these companies could not find some wiggle room in their billion dollar profit margins to adapt to a change that might for once lower monthly bills.
In California, power companies are trying hard to disincentivize solar. The worst time for the grid is when the sun starts going down but people are still running AC/laundry/dishwashers. Solar setups just generate power at the times when it's least needed, and utilities haven't built up enough battery capacity to take advantage of it for later.
Another thing we saw with some utilities is that they had to raise rates during the drought to cover their costs. People were so good at reducing their water consumption that the utilities were having trouble covering their large fixed costs. It'll be interesting to see how things go once California implements the income-based fixed electric billing in the next few years.
>utilities haven't built up enough battery capacity to take advantage of it for later.
After Tesla was able to supply a battery pack to the city in Australia after a Twitter bet, I'm really surprised that more storage has not been installed everywhere. Maybe I stopped paying attention to the story too soon, but did this battery buffer not fix the problem?
Battery storage remains constrained by cell availability. There is no spare capacity and it can only be scaled up slowly due to supply chain issues. The battery storage that Tesla sold to Australia is a step in the right direction but capacity is only a tiny fraction of what we would need in the USA to enable a large scale transition to renewable energy.
The California grid operator has a really cool website that shows realtime-ish graphs of supply and demand[1] and even daily battery reports[2]. One big takeaway is that the total battery capacity is kinda wimpy when you compare it to how much fossil fuel the state burns over the day.
The way net metering worked in the past is that people with solar could offload their access generation to power companies and make storage or resale the utility's responsibility. Then 2.0 was a sorta-time of use implementation, and now we're up to Net Metering 3.0 and I haven't bothered to look into how that works. However people I know who have looked into Tesla powerwalls haven't found them to be economical for individual homeowners.
My long term goal is to eventually be able to mostly run my house off DC solar. Considering that I moved to London from Las Vegas three years ago, it might not be the most realistic goal anymore, I grant you. ¦-D
I live in a place with similar temperatures to Las Vegas, and, I think the trick might be to have a very sealed up house, with very good insulation. And then, suck in as much cold nighttime air as you can, perhaps even running the AC at night since it is more efficient, and then try to ride that cold air through the day.
I do this as much as possible and it generally works fairly well.
Less so now that the power company cut down a tree that helped shade my roof, but I can usually make it into mid-afternoon before having to kick the AC on during the summer highs. High Desert in SoCal for reference.
Thats how lots of large commercial buildings do it. Make huge blocks of ice in the middle of the night when energy is cheap and the building's heat load is at a minimum, then melt the ice and use the phase change of water to absorb as much heat as possible.
Also why its colder in the morning and it feels like the building is a bit too warm to be comfortable if you stay late. This, of course, varies from building to building.
Something to note. If you put solar panels on the roof of a building, and plug them directly at 12V or 24V into an appropriate air conditioner (no batteries, inverters etc) the efficiency gains can be startling. Potentially useful for a lot of work places.
I wonder how much residential energy usage ends up being DC vs AC these days, with computers, USB devices, LEDs, etc. I remember reading something about converting homes to have DC outlets, wonder if that's not too far away.
I think it's less that 12 or 24 is more efficient than mains, but rather that not having to convert DC -> AC -> DC and also not having to step the voltage up and back down is more efficient. That's 2x 'rounds' of conversion you don't have to do anymore.
(though I'm not an electrician, I'm just guessing)
does someone actually make an compressor that runs off DC directly? It'd have to be a universal motor from what I understand. That seems really unreliable.
I believe most vehicle AC compressors run directly off of the serpentine belt (12v power comes from the engine anyway, why send it through the alternator and battery?) or, in the case of electric cars, off of the ~400v traction battery. The compressor draws around 1-2kW at full tilt, so in all cases it's best to run it directly off of the main power source with as few intermediate conversions as possible.
Ok, I was basing this on searching for DC air conditioning compressors with results that referenced automotive and mobile uses. Possibly what I was seeing were retrofit kits?
If the AC system is running on DC internally (e.g. DC fans instead of AC) then you have DC --> AC --> DC conversion and should probably figure about 10-15% loss at each of those. For convenience, call it a 25% loss of efficiency overall so not insignificant.
Edit: AC has advantages in transmission over distances, but if you're looking at both solar panels and AC units on the same roof distance is probably not a major factor.
97 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] thread> The power grid is also grappling with supply chain and worker shortage problems that have cause some power facilities to delay or cancel maintenance aimed at getting the system primed for summer. Specifically, NERC warned that low inventories of replacement transformers could derail efforts to restart power facilities following hurricanes and severe storms.
> Wind plays a central role in meeting demand in Texas as well as the two power grid regions that cover most of the central part of the United States. Drought conditions and low levels of major reservoirs could also hurt hydro power generation.
> NERC also flagged concerns about new environmental rules that restrict power plant emissions, warning these regulations will limit the operation of coal-fired generators in 23 states, including Nevada, Utah and states along the Gulf Coast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. This is the first summer since the implementation of the EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan, which aims to reduce cross-state smog from power plants and other industrial sites.
This is pretty clearly regulation/environmentalist caused. Not that we shouldn't pursue a climate friendly grid, but we're not there yet and forcing the timeline is causing creaks and issues.
My point being is that the other option wasn’t to do a gradual, planned rollout, given the political realities
But nope...
Yes, some people are stupid, a lot of "the greens" included here, but choosing unreliable and unstable power sources while demanding more power use (ban on ICE cars, ban on burning stuff for heat and cooking, etc.), is well.. stupid too.
Apparently you’re missing some context since nearly every politician is risking daily blackouts vs ramping up nuclear production.
Do you think that every single one is mistaking what will go over well with the people or that there is maybe a political issue that changes the calculus that you are either undervaluing or have missed entirely?
Edit: I didn’t even engage with your question correctly. That’s a false dichotomy. The politicians are banking that moving us towards renewables with its associated risks is a better path forward than moving us towards nuclear with its associated risks. Moving to a new energy paradigm like nuclear also could come with the risk of “daily blackouts” as whatever that migration would look like plays out. It’s not a “risky” choice vs a “risk-free” choice
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...
You could just as easily say that this is caused by greed and the desire for more profits. Wind power is extremely cheap (almost half the cost per megawatt hour compared to fossil fuel). So utilities are actually making more money when they sell their customers wind power. Where is the profit margin going? Not back into the infrastructure, that's for sure.
In every major outage the true cause is utility companies not investing back into making sure that their infrastructure is resilient. That includes resiliency against wind power going offline, such as building battery storage, gravity power storage, etc.
Naturally theres a wide spectrum of options between fixed prices and dynamic pricing that leads to shocking results.
It didn't produce enough for widespread smartphone adoption, either. Until it was needed.
We can "force the timeline" on the machinery and infrastructure that we control, or nature will force the timeline on the environmental factors we can't control. All the extreme weather is showing the latter is already happening.
Actually reading the details of the report, I don't think the power plant emissions regulations is actually a major impact; it seems that the lower efficiencies of power plants during extreme heat waves is having more of an impact on potential shortfalls rather than emissions cutoff. Except maybe for Texas, but Texas in general looks extremely screwed regardless.
Links to detailed analyses can be found in the link above.
Key notes:
"... overall, the North American bulk power system (BPS) remains highly reliable and resilient. However, extreme weather events continue to pose the greatest risk to its reliability and stability"
"Today’s BPS transmission system is continuing to show improvements in reliability and resilience, despite more common and extreme weather trends. However, higher overall outage rates for coal and gas generation, as well as some utility-scale solar generation not operating as necessary for reliability, indicate that there is still significant work to be accomplished"
"In 2022, conventional generation experienced its highest level of unavailability (8.5%) overall since NERC began gathering GADS data in 2013 as measured by the weighted equivalent forced outage rate. Figure 3 shows consistently increasing outage rates for coal over the observed five years, correlating with higher numbers of startups and maintenance outages."
Yes, there are issues to contend with when implementing new power sources. But those issues are nothing compared to the lack of investment in infrastructure more generally.
Are there no workers? Or no money? So a lack of educated people (electricians, electrical engineers) in the country? Or do those people get paid more to flip burgers and do other stuff?
- The Baby Boomers reaching Medicare + Social Security eligibility age.
- An Intransitive stance on immigration, leading to fewer workers, and especially an inability to hire trained workers
- Migrated from trades education ~30 years ago in favor of college preparatory
- Historically low unemployment (likely from the other factors)
- A very difficult to navigate minimum wage, costs of goods trap; where the dog food store near me is hiring at $15/hr; while a nearby alterations place was looking for a trained head seamstress for $10/hr, and grocery chains and Amazon are offering $30/hr warehouse jobs, while waitresses make $2.25 with little enforcement on tipped wages.
It's time to start hunting and punishing those who pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage (I dont think we should bother trying to fight illegal immigration against the immigrants, punish the citizens who are breaking their local laws ie paying too little)
>Historically low unemployment (likely from the other factors)
I actually think this is more about the historically low amount of folks participating in the economy. A lot of these bureau stats only consider folks who want a job. But what is also really eye opening is the percent of the population who does some work. That number is hitting 40yr lows, and approaching numbers seen in 50/60s when it was far less common for women to work.
Why does this matter? Imagine society has N hours of labor required to keep it functioning? If fewer people are willing to work, then the remaining worker pool must do more hours of work (or become far more productive).
Personally, I would disagree. The utility companies have had notice for quite some time that they are have very real capacity issues. However, the cost of bringing new generation on line is not worth it to them. They would rather keep things as is, and then ask customers to cut back, or issue rolling outages if they don't. Take the infamous Texas freeze as example where the utilities were recommended to take steps to protect against freezes, but they decided it was not worth the expense.
There's a difference between equipment and generating capabilities. Failed transformers are an issue, but it's not new. Not being able to meet demand is also not new, but it's only going to continue to be an increasing problem
edit: sure, downvote, but mandated increased demand without infrastructure first is a recipe for failure.
Spending a few days suffering in the sweltering heat really makes you appreciate the magic of the AC and reliable access to power.
The biggest concern is whether people will end up dying because of this. I know there's places in the US where the heat is legitimately lethal.
We're reaching breast cancer levels of awareness here. At this point, we're all aware of the issue and are actively voting to invest money in solving the problem. Awareness is no longer the problem.
I'm not sure how large it is...loud, maybe...
> I don't see a large chunk of the voter base pretending that breast cancer is a myth invented by the chinese to slow down America.
That's because the breast cancer hasn't led to the same kinds of policy proposals that climate change has. If it did, I'd expect you'd see similar claims of it being a myth, etc.
IMHO, claiming climate change is a myth is just a symptom of democratic opposition to certain climate change policies.
A quick google suggests that 173,000 terawatts of solar energy hits the earth continuously. If my googling and maths are correct, we're using 22k TWhr total meaning more energy hits the earth in 1 hour than we use annually.
Edit: plz do correct me on these maths if I'm off, i'm by no means an expert.
Given the forces aligned against green energy, I don't want to say big oil, but well, big oil, I don't see why we should that that at face value. Sunshine is generally quite available during hot sunny days, so it seems like it should scale for providing energy to power AC units.
To an extent we can use solar power generated in the western US to feed some of the later hours of AC demand in the east. But we can't do the reverse. And even the most optimistic estimates state that we are many years from having a useful amount of grid scale storage.
I typically leave my AC at 75f during daylight (when it's 100f ambient), but turn it down to 70 to sleep (when it's 85-90f ambient). So it's possible I'm actually ACing more or as much at night.
People solve problems and no power is a big problem.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Western_North_America_hea...
Make zero (or low) interest loans available to pay for it; the power companies could originate the loans and pay them back through the existing monthly payment system.
Everybody wins: people get cheaper/sustainable power, the grid load is eased, and the utilities can make money handling the money.
I've long held that, at least in developed countries, we should be ending unemployment insurance and moving to guaranteed employment and utilizing unemployed folks for public service projects such as solar installs.
Yes, of course not for disabled or high skilled folks who just need to transition. But for many many cases there's little reason to give someone hundreds per week for no work.
While I agree with that, it seems the implementation of a program like that would be quite difficult...especially considering how difficult it is to get pretty much anything done.
Are these new workers doing things that other union workers could be doing? Would they have to join the union? Those two simple things would derail any plan like that for one side of the isle in the US, at least.
Perhaps a wide retraining program offering. Something like "Hey you've been unemployed for 2 years, you're losing benefits starting (sometime). To help you along you can take a free solar installer course paid by the tax payer."
And when suddenly there is not enough of them work for food people? This is how GULAG came to be.
I'm thinking national projects like hoover dam and interstate highway systems.
"hoover dam"
Book Recommendation: The Profiteers: Bechtel and the Men Who Built the World https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25814021-the-profiteers?...
As i understand it having even a little work/contribution can help with holding off depression . It doesnt have to be 40hrs a week, but even a single day of work can help keep normalcy.
If millions of people stop paying monthly utility bills, electric utilities start to run in the red, or have to further raise rates while the grid further destabilizes. This is unfolding in real time in California and a few studies have come out showing that subsidized rooftop solar is doing more harm than good without utility-grade energy storage.
Phew. I am so relieved. Not a single day goes by when I do not think about how those poor riches manage.
But that would make actual use effectively free and disincentivize conservation. So it's a hard problem to solve.
You could perhaps raise the effective price of solar by writing in high per-month fees for any houses with solar, but also waive those fees for homes which prove they have a substantial-enough battery solution to help ease demand on the grid during the relatively high-use hours of 5PM to 10PM.
[1] It's different for big industrial users, like factories operating 24/7; their per-unit costs are dominated by consumption rather than infrastructure. They also get lower prices partially reflecting these lower costs.
There is often a difference between "industrial" vs. "commercial" but both seem to pay lower rates than residential.
I realize that in your scenario we're talking about millions of people no longer paying utility bills, but surely that could not and would not happen overnight, and I cannot imagine that these companies could not find some wiggle room in their billion dollar profit margins to adapt to a change that might for once lower monthly bills.
Another thing we saw with some utilities is that they had to raise rates during the drought to cover their costs. People were so good at reducing their water consumption that the utilities were having trouble covering their large fixed costs. It'll be interesting to see how things go once California implements the income-based fixed electric billing in the next few years.
After Tesla was able to supply a battery pack to the city in Australia after a Twitter bet, I'm really surprised that more storage has not been installed everywhere. Maybe I stopped paying attention to the story too soon, but did this battery buffer not fix the problem?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/australia-switches-on-victor...
The way net metering worked in the past is that people with solar could offload their access generation to power companies and make storage or resale the utility's responsibility. Then 2.0 was a sorta-time of use implementation, and now we're up to Net Metering 3.0 and I haven't bothered to look into how that works. However people I know who have looked into Tesla powerwalls haven't found them to be economical for individual homeowners.
[1]: https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
[2]: http://www.caiso.com/Documents/DailyEnergyStorageReportJun22...
Isn't that trivial to at least mitigate via time-of-use rates?
Less so now that the power company cut down a tree that helped shade my roof, but I can usually make it into mid-afternoon before having to kick the AC on during the summer highs. High Desert in SoCal for reference.
Also why its colder in the morning and it feels like the building is a bit too warm to be comfortable if you stay late. This, of course, varies from building to building.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323883629_DC_Applia... for example
The match between daytime AC loads in workplaces and the output from solar panels is close enough to work in many areas.
(though I'm not an electrician, I'm just guessing)
At smaller scales? Absolutely. You'll find them in almost every enclosed vehicle in the USA at various sizes.
In traditional ICE cars it's belt driven off the engine. There is no electricity e involved to rotate it, just to engage a small clutch.
Edit: AC has advantages in transmission over distances, but if you're looking at both solar panels and AC units on the same roof distance is probably not a major factor.