Month: April 2023

Guest essay by: Thomas E. Shula
Rancho Mirage, CA

The figure below, published by NASA, is one example of many that attempt to visualize the various factors in the “Energy Budget” of the Earth.  The yellow arrows on the left depict the incoming solar radiation. It is in part absorbed by the atmosphere, partially reflected into space by clouds and the atmosphere, partially reflected by the surface of the Earth, and a bit less than 50% is absorbed by the surface of the Earth and converted into heat. On the right, the red arrows depict the paths that transport the energy from the Earth’s surface to space, as postulated by the greenhouse effect.  This model of the “Energy Budget” is the basis of climate models attempting to predict the effects of hypothesized Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) from greenhouse gases. 

Diagram Courtesy of NASA

As the inset paragraph in the NASA diagram states, “On average, and over the long term, there is a balance at the top of the atmosphere.”

The values associated with each of the arrows in the diagram are the corresponding energy fluxes in Watts/m2.  These values are derived in different ways, some of which are relevant to this exposition and will be described below.  These values are used in climate models and may vary as the models evolve, though typically not by much.  Some typical values from a NASA document can be found on page 16 HERE.[1]  Certain assumptions led to the development of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.  One of the conclusions explained at Earth Temperature without GHGs – Energy Education[2] is that without greenhouse gases, the earth would be approximately 33 C cooler, essentially an average temperature near freezing.  This is the result of treating both the Earth and its atmosphere as blackbodies following the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, as is discussed in this VIDEO[3]  from an online course about climate modeling. 

From the energy budget diagram, there are four red arrows corresponding to (average) longwave (Infrared) radiation flux.  They are as follows:

• 398.2 Watts/m2 longwave radiation upwelling from the surface
• 18.4 Watts/m2 upward from conduction/convection
• 86.4 Watts/m2 upward from evapotranspiration
• 340.3 Watts/m2 longwave radiation downwelling from the atmosphere as Back Radiation

According to the greenhouse effect, it is the downwelling Back Radiation that “traps” the heat in the atmosphere to keep the Earth warm.

For purposes of this exposition, we will consider only first two components above, as we will be investigating the relationship between upwelling longwave radiation and conduction/convection at the Earth’s surface.  According to the model explained above, 398.2 W/m2 represents  approximately 95.5% of shared heat transport and conduction/convection approximately 4.5% of shared heat transport.

How might we measure this?  We know that there are three mechanisms for transport of heat energy: conduction, convection, and radiation.  One needs to design an experiment that can discern the proportion of heat loss due to radiation versus the heat loss due to conduction and convection.  It so happens that there is a common instrument that has been in use for over 100 years that does precisely this.

The Pirani Gauge

This image was provided with permission by MKS Instruments, Inc. (Andover, MA)

The modern Pirani Gauge is used to measure vacuum in the range from 760 Torr to 10-4 Torr, though some are designed to measure higher pressures up to 1000 Torr.  It was invented in 1906 by Marcello Pirani, a German physicist working for Siemens & Halske, and has been used in a myriad of applications for over 100 years.  The operating principle of the gauge is simple.  Inside the gauge body there is a filament that is heated and maintained at a constant temperature.  The energy going into the filament is controlled via the current flowing through it.  Energy can be dissipated from the filament in four ways:

• Gas Conduction
• Gas Convection
• Radiation
• End Losses (i.e., conduction of heat from the filament to its support structure.)

The Radiation and End Losses are constant and can be measured by creating an adequate vacuum inside the gauge so that losses from conduction and convection are negligible.  When gas is introduced to the enclosure, heat is removed from the filament via conduction and convection.  The input power required to maintain the temperature of the filament will depend on how much energy is being removed via conduction and convection by the gas.  In summary, the Pirani gauge tells us the relative contributions to heat transport by radiation versus conduction/convection as a function of gas pressure for an object (the filament in this case) held at a constant temperature.  Referring to the paragraph preceding the above image, this is exactly the measurement we are looking for.

The response curve for a typical gauge is shown in next illustration.  Both illustrations can be found in the Technical Note “Introduction to Vacuum Pressure Measurement” published by MKS Instruments, and the specific gauge illustrated in the figure is an MKS Instruments convection enhanced Pirani gauge.

This image was provided with permission by MKS Instruments, Inc. (Andover, MA)

The red line in the chart represents the (constant) total radiative and end losses of approximately 0.4 mW.  The blue line represents the power loss due to gas only, and the green curve that flattens out on the two ends represents the total loss, i.e., the total energy input required to maintain the temperature of the filament as a function of pressure.  At atmospheric pressure, 760 Torr, the power required to maintain the temperature of the filament is 100 mW.  Since the radiative and end losses are 0.4 mW, this means that the heat transport by gas is 99.6%, with only 0.4% due to radiative and end losses.  This should not be surprising, because all gas molecules can transport heat via conduction and convection, not just the tiny fraction that constitute the so-called “greenhouse gases.”

We can also consider the case of a vacuum pressure of 10 Torr, the equivalent of about 110,000 feet above sea level.  In this case, about 60 mW of power is required to maintain the filament temperature, so the gas is still accounting for about 99.3% of heat transport with radiative and end losses only 0.7%.  As one goes higher in altitude a larger proportion of the heat transport is attributable to radiation, and that is how all the heat eventually returns to space in the extreme upper atmosphere.  The crossover point, where gas losses are equal to radiative and end losses, is at about 200 milliTorr (.02 Torr), equivalent to an altitude beyond 250,000 feet.  The response of the Pirani gauge is independent of the enclosure it is in or the lack thereof.  If we took a “naked” Pirani gauge to an altitude where the atmospheric pressure is 10 Torr, the response would be the same as if it was attached to a vacuum system at a pressure of 10 Torr.  There have been Pirani gauges made in many different sizes and configurations, some with radiative losses on the order of 0.1% at standard atmospheric pressure.[4]

The filament in the Pirani gauge is analogous to the surface of the Earth.  The gas molecules collide with the surface and absorb energy raising their effective temperature (conduction).  A “bubble” of this warmer gas then rises relative to the cooler gas around it as the cooler gas drops to the surface and repeats the cycle continuously (convection).  This cools the surface and is perfectly illustrated by the response of the Pirani gauge. This is well understood by those who have worked with high temperature processes in vacuum systems, and no doubt by many others.   The author can only speculate regarding why this has not been given consideration earlier.

Conclusions

The Pirani gauge provides a method to measure the relative contributions of radiation vs. conduction/convection to heat transport in a gaseous environment as a function of pressure.  At pressures relevant to the lower atmosphere (troposphere + stratosphere) radiation accounts for less than 1% of the upward heat transport.  This does not refute the existence of said radiation in the lower atmosphere, it only demonstrates experimentally that its role in upward heat transport is insignificant.

It has been demonstrated via the Pirani gauge operating principle that upward heat transport via radiation plays an insignificant role in the transport of heat at atmospheric pressures from the surface to the upper stratosphere.  The greenhouse effect, if it exists, is based on upward heat transport via radiation in the lower atmosphere.  Therefore the greenhouse effect, if it exists, plays an insignificant role in heat transfer and, by extension, the energy balance of the atmosphere.

Contemporary climate models are based on energy balance models of the type depicted in the NASA diagram at the beginning of this paper.  It is clear from the NASA diagram as well as similar diagrams from other sources that the fundamental assumption of these models is that radiation is the primary driver of upward heat transport in the lower atmosphere.  Because radiation is an insignificant driver of upward heat transport in the lower atmosphere, these models are based on a false assumption and are therefore invalid.  Finally, because the models are generally intended to support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming because of the greenhouse effect, there is no scientific evidence for the greenhouse effect or Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The radiation energy that the Earth absorbs from the Sun arrives at the speed of light.  The Earth loses heat at a speed driven by convection in a process we call “weather.”  Weather is the chaotic process by which the Earth’s atmosphere continuously tries to reach thermal equilibrium but never succeeds.  The convection takes place continuously, but the speed at which heat is transported by convection is MUCH slower than the speed of light.  This means that heat energy leaves the Earth more slowly than it arrives, and that is why the Earth is warmer than predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. 

Appendix

(April 11, 2023)

How did “Climate Science” get this so wrong?

The two fundamental assumptions leading to the Greenhouse Effect are that 1) The primary mechanism by which the surface of the Earth loses heat is radiation and, 2) Based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law the temperature of the Earth’s surface should be 33K cooler than what we observe.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law (SBL) defines a blackbody (which is an idealized object that does not exist in nature) as having the following characteristics:

1. It exists in an environment at 0K, i.e., a perfect vacuum.
2. It is in equilibrium with its environment.
3. It is a perfect absorber of radiation.

With certain adjustments such as emissivity, the SBL provides a convenient means of measuring the temperature of an object based on its emitted radiation even in non-ideal environments.  The estimation of the temperature of stars for example, and the use of infrared cameras to detect “hot spots.”  One must be careful, however, to keep in mind that it is only the “idealized” black body that behaves strictly according to the SBL.

The Earth and its atmosphere do not satisfy any of the conditions of SBL.   Additionally, it has become common to ignore condition number 1 above.  If one looks up the definition of a blackbody, a reference to the 0K (perfect vacuum) condition is often not mentioned.  This typically has little effect when it comes to temperature measurements using optical techniques, but it is extremely important in understanding the dynamics of heat transfer in, for example, terrestrial conditions.

This is neglected in climate models.  It assumes that with the surface temperature of 288K the power radiated upward from the surface is 398 Watts/m2 and that it is all longwave IR radiation.  It then becomes necessary to “balance” that upwelling radiation with “back radiation” to obtain “radiative balance” in the atmosphere.

What is happening is quite different.  At 288K temperature the photon flux (generously assuming it is all at 15 micron wavelength to maximize the number of IR active photons) is approximately 3X1022 photons/sec-m2.   That is a lot of photons, and if the surface was in a perfect vacuum that radiative flux would be the only way for the surface to release energy.

But we have an atmosphere.  At standard temperature and pressure, air has some very interesting properties.   It is much denser than we typically imagine.

Average molecular velocity approximately 470 m/sec (1050 mph, supersonic at the macro level)

Molecular collision frequency (each with another) approximately 7,000,000,000 collisions/sec (7 GHz)

Mean free path approximately 70 nm (about 1/10 wavelength of visible light)

Frequency of collisions with an ideal planar surface approximately 3X1027 collisions/sec-m2

To put this in perspective, the last number is quite useful.   The average surface area of an adult human is around a square meter.  That means that each second about 100 lbs. of air molecules collide with each of us with an average speed of about 1050 mph.  More importantly, given the photon flux at 288K this means that approximately 100,000 air molecules collide with the surface for each potential infrared photon emitted.  Because the energy transfer from collisions will change the equilibrium at the surface by removing energy through conduction, it is likely that the actual emitted photon flux will be even less.  To believe that radiative transfer is the primary mechanism for upward heat transfer at the Earth’s surface would mean that one IR photon would transfer more energy than 100,000 molecular collisions.  These numbers are for a perfectly smooth planar surface.  The actual surface area at an atomic level can be much greater. 

Clearly, the interface between the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere is an extremely chaotic place at the atomic level.  This gives perspective to explain what we see in the operation of the Pirani gauge as explained in the body of this paper.

References:

[1] Kelly, Schmidt, et al, GISS-E2.1: Configurations and Climatology

[2] Earth Temperature without GHGs – Energy Education

[3] (224) Climate Dynamics Lecture 02 Energy and the Earth System – YouTube

[4] Fabrication of thermal‐based vacuum gauge – Jung – 2014 – Micro & Nano Letters – Wiley Online Library

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

From Climate Etc.

by Planning Engineer  (Russ Schussler)

“Green” ideas and their proponents can create problems.  Like the antagonist in Terminator 2, green arguments and proponents don’t go down easily.  With serious challenges, they retreat, hibernate sometimes, morph, transform and come back.  It’s hard to argue with many “green” energy ideas.  They are often huge in scope but severely limited in details.  Focusing on a couple key factors and ignoring  or leaving so much to be worked out later.  Painfully naïve or unaware of so many factors associated with the provision of energy, feedback and often even human behavior.   They see the flaws in current efforts, but are blind to the drawbacks which will necessarily emerge from their proposals.  The offer conjectures with a lot of dots to still be connected. They speak of things that may be possible, without any handle on the probabilities.

Usually, “green” ideas are packaged with threats of doom, promises of superior technology or both.   The media are drawn to both those themes and many policy makers are attracted as well.   Attention is a great thing for new ideas.  The themes of urgency and the scope of change,  gives these ideas more weight and seeming gravitas.  Unfortunately, the needed incentives to dig down and look critically as these ideas are generally lacking. Woefully, those promulgating “green” ideas don’t have much incentive for engaging with their critics or broadening their understandings. They generate the feeling that we need to move forward with the big, new important thing – no time for distractions.

Death of the Grid

Consider the following example.  Predictions for the death of the grid have held some prominence during the last decade.   It started around 2012 with forecasts of ‘death spirals” for utilities.  The theory was that as customers found self-generation options preferable, more and more would leave the grid, thus raising costs for those who remained. This grid defection or load defection would lead to rising costs which would lead to further load/grid defection.  Searching “grid defection” and/or “load defection “brings up a host of warnings proclaiming a coming green energy transition which would be accompanied by the demise of the grid.

Financial analysts joined in and issued warnings as well:

• Morgan Stanley, Clean Tech, Utilities & Autos [March 2014] “Our analysis suggests utility customers may be positioned to eliminate their use of the power grid.”
• Barclays, Utilities Credit Strategy Analyst Report [May 2014] “We see near-term risks to credit from regulators and utilities falling behind the solar + storage adoption curve and long-term risks from a comprehensive re-imagining of the role utilities play in providing electric power.”
• Goldman Sachs, Analyst note on Tesla stock [March 2014] “…decreased reliability from an aging distribution infrastructure, a broadening desire to reduce the carbon footprint, and perhaps most importantly, the reduction of solar panel and battery costs could also work together to make grid independence a reality for many customers one day”

Creating Challenges for Transmission Project Approval

This “idea” or “forecast” of potential grid obsolescence caused challenges in the real world of electric utilities planning.  At the time, I was seeking the approval of annual grid construction budgets running into the hundreds of million dollars per year. My Board asked: why are we putting so much into a grid that Morgan Stanley and others say might go away?   I shared my perspectives with the board, arguing the need for continued grid expansion. Some of those perspectives can be read in these two articles I co-authored some years later, titled Reports of the Electric Grid’s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated  and The Grid End Game.

At the time, our Board (and many others) were in a tough position.  Who are you going to believe?  Academics, government experts, renewable specialists and recognized financial experts, or your own local guy?  From my perspective, I had a strong understanding of electric supply, consumer needs, issues around availability and deliverability, and I worked hard to understand what the arguments of the other “experts”. The renewables people seemed to have so much faith in themselves that they didn’t need to be bothered by the details of providing electrical service or understanding why their predictions might be wrong.  Financial experts were relying on renewable experts without paying attention to many of the broader issues involved in power delivery. While to me it seems clear, that considerable respect should go to those in the field versus the potential disruptors, that has been a hard argument to make historically.  Despite their poor record of forecasting in the past, those who’ve made bad predictions continue to gain considerable attention and respect.

What did we do to help our board?  At strategic planning meetings we took the other side.  We assumed the need for the grid would wither away.  We looked at what might happen to our billions in investment.  We argued that our resources would still have value. For example, some of our transmission ties would be valuable for energy exchanges between distributed networks.  Many of our transmission substations could house batteries and serve to support smaller networks.  Other right of ways we owned might have value for communication pathways, pipelines, roadways or the like.  That provided enough comfort for going forward with continued transmission investment in the interim.

Overwhelmingly it’s a good thing that many entities continued to build transmission, despite the dire warnings of grid obsolescence. Less optimal results likely ensued when project support was stymied by the cautions of “experts”.  The “green” consensus now seems to be that  enhanced robust grids are essential to increasing the penetration of renewables. The existing grid elements , including projects completed back then despite the warnings,  are foundational to any serious efforts at expanding renewable resources.

Experts at Conferences

Back then, there were various conferences, symposiums and working groups centered around the demise of the grid. I went to several to make sure I was aware of their best arguments and well informed on recent and potential developments. At one sponsored by the Department of Energy,  Ernest Moniz in 2013, the US Secretary of the Department of Energy welcomed us.  Unfortunately, such gatherings usually failed to provide significant platforms for dissenting views and were a little heavy handed in touting grid fears. My experience with one large “working group” illustrates generally how these meeting would go.  Here to the best of my memory is what happened at a working group held at Duke University, which had around 100 participants, government sponsorship and was run by high priced consultants. I asked questions suggesting the grid had a lot of value and that distributed “green” resources would struggle mightily in its absence.  Those on the agenda were super confident, they had it all figured out.  Those questioning the “wisdom” were seen as oddballs, but some people would come up and whisper to me during breaks that they were wondering the same things.

One task introduced for the large working group in attendance was figuring out what we might do to make the grid more relevant as demand for the grid decreased. I sensed a disconnect, if the group felt the grid did not have value, why work to preserve it? I passionately explained,  “I work for a transmission only entity.  I believe the grid had great value and will continue to provide great value. But if you are right, perhaps the grid should be allowed to fade away.”  I explained that, “my goal is to meet the needs of our distribution customers and end-use consumers.  If they have better options than retaining the grid – I would encourage them to use those options. ” I asked then, “Why if you think the grid is not needed, do you care about its continuance?  What’s the purpose of this working group? Why isn’t our goal to help the transition?” The  room got silent and eventually the facilitator noted that was an interesting perspective worthy of consideration.

What the group decided to do (likely pre-ordained by the facilitators) was model a bunch of different future generation scenarios showing where new generation would come from to see what they showed about timing and the need for the grid.  There were a number of different scenarios proposed, some dominated by large distant wind, other more supported by dispersed solar and so on.  All potential scenarios were heavily or exclusively renewables based.   I asked shouldn’t we have one scenario where new natural gas plants played some role.  (Much like what has actually played out in the last decade.)   The leaders quickly came back and said, “NO, fracking might  be banned! So, gas scenarios may be worthless.”   I replied that I certainly understood that as a possibility, but that every other scenario suggested faced similar challenges and roadblocks. Wouldn’t a scenario showing some addition of natural gas plants be worthwhile for comparison purposes?  When we broke into smaller working groups with differing tasks,  I wasn’t assigned to the one refining and selecting the the scenarios. Not surprisingly additional natural gas resources  were not included in in any of the scenarios.  ( I suppose I don’t need to tell the readers that any additional nuclear wasn’t represented as a possibility in any of the scenarios either.)

Real work responsibilities prevented me from attending the follow up sessions. While I looked forward to reading the reports that came out of the group, no reports or formal outputs ever materialized. By the time they were finishing up, I suspect the handwriting was on the wall and it had becoming clear enough that the findings they originally anticipated would not be defensible.  Unfortunately, it’s often the case that when these type groups don’t find the results they want, they don’t admit mistakes or publish a lesson learned from their endeavors. They just move on to something else.

Deja Vu: The Ideas Changed but the Same Experts Remained 

I recognized many of the individuals and groups who were pushing the end of the grid, from various conferences, symposiums and working groups I had attended years earlier  on the topic of  Integrated Resource Planning (IRP).  It was like seeing the same actors in a slightly different play. Reading new scripts but still ushering in “green” change and creating problems for those actually trying to support the grid.

One of the entities involved in both was the Rocky Mountain Institute.   They, like many of the other “experts” pushing the demise of the grid, earlier were busy pushing Integrated Resource Planning. The Rocky Mountain Institute touted the great value of negawatts (a unit of electricity save by conservation).  They characterized the traditional utility approach to planning as blindly looking at load growth and building resources as needed.  They proposed that considerable benefits would accrue from treating load, generation, efficiency and distributed resources on equal footing in all stages of planning.  The argued that utilities could see significant savings by paying customers to improve efficiency and thus lowering their need for costly infrastructure improvements. They thought negawatts should be a prime option for addressing system needs and avoiding infrastructure. Buying negawatts could save on infrastructure.

They encouraged the expectation that forecasts of expensive upgrades for transmission lines should preferably be addressed by targeted localized efficiency programs. It’s hard to estimate potential efficiency gains on a system wide basis, let alone in targeted load areas.  Deploying programs with such precision is  huge problem because of  all the uncertainty in load growth, efficiency program impacts and other interrelated factors.  Due to the complexity and unknowns, it was likely impossible for any utility to do defer individual projects by using the recommended IRP approaches.

Back in the mid-90s, regulators would ask if you looked at delaying a transmission uprate by implementing a program to incentivize replacements of older refrigerators with more efficient ones.  They were not impressed when you told them, this did not seem like a workable solution.  All these experts were telling everyone utilities should do this, but looking across the nation (and globally) no one had achieved any kind of success suggesting this was remotely possible.  I was very pleased when I heard the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) was undertaking a huge program to demonstrate the state of the art as to how such things could be done.

EPRI selected a community in Oregon and they were going to follow the best advice of “experts” to demonstrate the proposed concepts. I naively  felt that either they would give us guidance as to how this might realistically be accomplished, or more likely force them to publicize the limitations of such approaches.  I expected they would encounter numerous  unwieldly real-world challenges.  The program was launched with a big fanfare at with a considerably large budget.  I followed the early efforts as the program implementation began. The early documentation was frequent and very impressive, explaining the great things being undertaken.   As results should have been emerging, suddenly there was silence. I heard the program was having some trouble, but nothing was being published.  I searched and searched over time.  Finally, years later, I found a comprehensive listing of cancelled EPRI projects.  For the targeted efficiency program there were only about  two lines in that listing. It stated the project name and  said only that the project was cancelled because the target city had become the wind surfing capital of the east coast and the resultant load growth in the area had made the project infeasible.

That’s the way the world works most of the time.  Something big comes along that you didn’t anticipate, or many small things, or a combination of factors.  Having overly complicated plans dependent on getting multiple variables right, is not a good recipe for success. I wish EPRI had provided some follow up.  With all the investment and efforts put into place, before they realized their hoped-for plans were dashed, they could have provided some documentation of the challenges and successes (if any) they encountered before the project “blew up”.  But unfortunately, it is not common for  to write of the demise of their cherished ideas. The promoters  just withdraw and let their dreams hibernate to maybe come back another day. The obvious lessons aren’t learned. The experts that pushed for these ideas found a new wagon to hitch to their horses, and for many of the IRP/negawatt experts it was the idea of grid defection.

It’s a Game

What was gained by forecasting the death of the grid?  What was gained by making utilities prioritize using negawatts?   Claiming disaster or a new superior approach grabs attention. Extreme criticisms of existing approaches can get attention as well.   This attention can help entities promote other related objectives. Predicting the end of the grid is pretty bold and it attracted a lot of press.  It helped focus attention on “green” projects and industries and no doubt helped their funding.  If the claims are bold and the consequences large, it seems that the strength of supporting evidence is irrelevant.

Historically we’ve had an excellent power system, but there will always be emerging needs and challenges.  Arguing for continued incremental improvements makes sense.  Saying the grid is worthwhile and will be needed for a long while, though  is not as exciting as forecasting the grids end.  Looking at the world more realistically is suitable for boring articles in the trade publications. Talk of enhancements to existing technology while carefully nurturing new technology is not near as exciting as most “green” proposals.  It perhaps should not be surprising that such plans do not garner as much attention or support.  But that is unfortunate, because projects conceived with such understandings have proven, and will likely continue to be proven,  to be the best options in the future.

When green ideas seem credible to unquestioning minds, they have shown that they can attract crowds, attention and money.  With political support their proponents can avoid engagement with critics.  When the real world intrudes and some ideas seem less credible, the appropriate lessons aren’t learned; rather the same flawed ideas merely hibernate.  Those pushing the discarded ideas then find new ideas to push. Sometimes “green” advocates switch gears to advocate renewable energy ideas that are directly contradictory to what they were advancing before. That type thing goes on untouched without observation or notice.

Where are We Now?

Most “green” entities now see the grid as central to achieving CO2 goals.  The Rocky Mountain Institute is currently much less bullish on grid defection then they were before and they now observe that, “the grid has been growing in importance for decades as a driver of economic growth, and recently as a key enabler for meeting economy-wide decarbonization targets through electrification with renewable energy.”  However,  they note that “historical approaches to ensuring grid security in the United States are proving to be poorly suited to the emerging, catastrophic threats facing the grid.” Now they warn that, “A grid outage can mean not being able to access critical health services, water supply, communications, and more, negatively affecting people’s well-being and our country’s economic growth.”

By now almost  all “green” advocates have figured out that the grid is central to allowing the increased penetration of renewable resources. Rather than proclaiming the death of the grid, they see the grid now as needing their help. They don’t praise the grid for what it has done, but rather are critical of the supposed shortcomings of the grid. They speak of modern grids as being “third world grids”. They insist that new ideas are needed  and they encourage the expansion of the grid with the development of enhanced capabilities.  Suddenly they are the defenders of the grid and the experts who know what must be done with the grid to protect us from the looming crises.

The truth is that integrating increasing amounts of solar and wind is complicated, expensive and poses reliability risks.  Renewable advocates want to blame the grid for the problems inherent in asynchronous intermittent wind and solar generation.  Their ideas for the future grid are more about transferring and hiding costs rather than about providing technical solutions to the problems posed by integrating wind and solar.

The grid has seen substantial changes over the years.  It has become stronger, more robust and continues to use new technology to enhance its functioning.  The grid is “smart” now, it was “smart” in the past and it will continue to be “smart” in the future.    Nevertheless, integrating large amounts of wind and solar will create significant problems for the power system.  Changes to the grid can help integrate more wind and solar, but only with  increasingly greater costs and increasing reliability concerns. It’s not an exciting message, but it’s one that should be heard. We shouldn’t let talk of emerging technological breakthroughs or apocalyptic threats distract us from serious considerations.  The grid should grow and evolve as it always has by balancing economics, reliability and public responsibility.   That will likely happen slowly and  bit by bit, not by a top-down politically mandated grand redesign.

Postscript: Just after completing this posting  it was reported that California is considering moving to fixed rate billing (based on income) which would completely uncouple electric consumers from usage concerns.   I remember that once upon a time smart meters giving real time data to customers paired with real time pricing was the key for efficiency and better use of  of distributed resources.  In fact, RMI wrote in 2015 that:

“The grid of the future will be centered on the customer, enabling customers to understand and manage their energy use more efficiently. Personalized, transparent, and actionable data availability to customers and to the marketplace is a key factor enabling that transition… (P)ersonalized feedback has been described as the “holy grail” of energy efficiency, and yields the greatest percentage of customer responses and energy savings.”

I’m afraid that emerging problems triggered by  California’s “green” efforts are behind this terribly ill-conceived proposal.  I wait to see how RMI and other “green” advocates will react to California’s fixed cost proposals.  My guess is that they may like fixed costs billing because consumers can be completely separated from the consequences of their personal energy use allowing “green” energy initiatives to be pursued with less transparency and interference.

4.8
13
votes

Article Rating

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related