Shouldn’t we be comparing power supplies using nameplate ratings – Increase Watts with that?

Compare the nameplate ratings of different electrical power sources comparable to using IQ as the sole or most relevant metric for assessing an employee’s value to the company they work for job… If everyone has the same level of health, skills and work ethic, it might suffice. But we don’t. And so are the different types of power plants.

To those of us who focus on the costs and benefits of different types of power plants in the grid, it seems there has been an attempt at staging through the media, advertising and public relations – even government agencies – to mislead the public about the proposed value of wind and sun.

One of the most obvious examples is the continued use of “name plate rating” (power generated) wind and sunshine as the benchmark of value and comparison. The nameplate rating itself is not a reflection of the energy or reliability contribution to the grid system.

In the 20th century, “name plate assessment” was a reasonable proxy for contributing to peak demand whenever that peak might have occurred. In other words, all common types of power plants can be turned on and running – according to their “name plate rating” – whenever they are needed (beyond scheduled maintenance periods). large or when some chance of a small unexpected breakdown) because they can manage their fuel.

For these tried-and-tested technologies where fuel delivery is determined by human ingenuity and the ability to learn/adapt, one typically drops the nameplate rating by about 10 to 10 percent. 15% to achieve “power value” or “full system contribution” value (at a reliable level, as watt-required). This value for each power plant is added together system-wide, and the total is expected to cover maximum system demand (known as peak load) with about 10 to fifteen percent high. more as a “backup margin” to avoid potential blackouts due to unexpected or unexpected power outages High demand.

The amount of the reserve margin is a trade-off between the risk of blackouts (and other system reliability issues) and cost. Therefore, a “just right” “completeness” system is important to keep electricity prices low because Power plants cost much more to build and maintain than all the fuel they will consume during their lifetime. Whereby, Too many power plants are actually too many because they are expensive to build, and so they rely on enough revenue from their productivity to pay for themselves and generate a return on investment over several decades.

90% system suitability contribution per watt Nameplate ratings are fair and common for common grades from coal, gas to nuclear. But wind and solar are different from ‘Company’ capacity technologies. It is not possible to manage their “fuel”, solar and wind radiation – that is, to be consistently distributed and converted to electricity – and never will be. This is especially important at a time when demand is greatest. As a result, they do not significantly displace the most expensive component of the cost of electricity: tunable power plants. Instead, they tap market share, gross margin, and revenue from a trusted fleet they can only pretend they can replace.

There is also the problem that the basic ability of renewables not to be generated at times of peak demand is that these “intermittent fuel generators” typically generate most when society requires less electricity, creating an undervalued market price for all electricity producers – sometimes less than what they pay to generate (called marginal cost), and much lower compared to the full cost of keeping the system secure when considering loan payments, salaries and other monthly expenses that all power plants must meet.

Because Wind and solar “name plate assessment” is not a measure of the amount of electricity expected to be generated over time nor their contribution to system reliability.. Yet again and again we see government agencies, grid operators and especially the media reporting on GENERATOR CAPACITY (name plate review) compared to other conventional power generation technology.

Using nameplate capacity to compare technologies is misleading people believe that weather-dependent electricity can “replace” technologies that can manage their fuel when they can’t. This type of reporting and public relations, intentional or not, is prone to creating discontinuities. It’s sad when done by the media and public relations, and worse when done by a government agency.

However, for cost comparisons, the US Department of Energy EIA states it in their annual converted electricity cost report, with the desire to:

“Duty cycle for intermittent renewable resources, wind and solar, not controlled by the operator. . ”……………………. .

PJM, the world’s largest wholesale electricity market operator, seems to agree in this statement when describing the priorities in their most recent renewable energy transition study: “The correct calculation of the generator’s contributed power is essential: A system with many variable resources will require new approaches to fully assess the reliability value of individual resources and the system as a whole”.

This speaks directly to the importance of comparing the exact contribution of system adequacy between different generating technologies as a headline measure of value – instead of evaluating the nameplate.

Two precise metrics for comparing intermittent and adjustable power plants as an alternative to using panel ratings are:

first) Full contribution system (in MW) and

2) every year electricity generate energy (in MWhs)

Unfortunately, as PJM points out, methods for estimating the full system contribution are also controversial. The most widely used metric is the “old method”, or ELCC (effective load capacity). That metric would be useful if all the resulting technologies were symbiotic and non-parasitic. In other words, ELCC does not think that wind and solar are poised to degrade the financial viability of the current variable fleet that renewables need to sustain, and ELCC uses as the basis for its calculations. the full system contribution of “parasitic” renewables! In essence, this indicator is not well-suited to an energy mix where competing technologies are not direct substitutes. The ELCC subtly argues that renewables have been politically prioritized in deployment and undermined the financial solvency of credible power plant investments.

A better way to estimate the full system contribution is to look at recent historical renewable energy generation patterns in the context of the load and amplitude patterns they can serve, independently. with the detected mixture. We endorse a tool called “Lowest Quadrant Generation During Peak Load Hours (MLQ) recommended by Market Monitor in the SOM 2012 MISO report.

In fact, according to this data, The following shows both nameplate capacity (outlined, uncolored) and full system contribution (colored) of the US electrical mix as of the end of 2018.

By misusing the basis of comparison between power plant types, governments, market operators, and image-obsessed companies are ignoring economics and cautious physics, placing importance on belong to concept of a cleaner, self-sustaining world dependent on weather for power ahead of real priorities like an affordable, abundant, and reliable grid, in line with FERC’s mission, to support human flourishing.

Renewable energy only “takes root” because governments, market operators, utility regulators and lost The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors – misunderstood only in that they do not take into account how the Grid actually works, as discussed above – seek an unrealistic and dynamic pace force of the “energy transition”. These things propel modern civilization toward an economy like the one we had in the 1800s and earlier – the last time the world was “decarbonized”.

http://www.energyliteracy.net/