Hawaiian Electric Company Dreaming on Big Renewables Plan
On June 28, 2013 the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) released its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) which outlines how it will meet electricity demand over the next five years and how it will achieve the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) which require that 25% of generation be from renewables by 2020 and 40% by 2030.
This 775 page document consists of hundreds of graphs and tables from different runs of a computer modeling tool called the "Strategist". There are also some very superficial statements about the potential for Demand Response, conservation, integration of more renewable generation and inter-island cable connections.
After our initial meeting with the client, which
involved about 15 people for the whole day, our
sales guy was ecstatic because we had accomplished
two things; we agreed upon a name for the engagement
(which he had proposed to the group in the first 5
minutes of the meeting) and we agreed upon a two
sentence mission statement.
That incredibly "productive" meeting sealed the deal
for an equally "productive" sale of 30,000 hours of
consulting to the client with no deliverables, no
schedule, and no guarantee as to the quality or
qualifications of the consultants they would get.
What I find conspicuously absent from the HECO IRP is something called common sense.
It is implied in the report that the integration of significant additional amounts of Photo-Voltaic (PV) solar and wind into the grids on the various Hawaiian Islands will allow HECO to meet the RPS requirements while keeping electricity rate increases under control. An independent analyst working for the Public Utility Commission did not agree. In what I would characterize as a very thorough and objective report the many issues with the HECO IRP are identified in detail. The following quote summarizes the fundamental problem;
"The scope of the HECO Companies' analyses seems to be more narrowly focused within the bounds of a work plan and approach using a specific scenario planning approach and a specific resource analysis model (Strategist) to analyze resource planning issues."
In other words, the IRP relies principally upon a computer modeling tool to generate answers rather than applying human logic to analyze reasonable alternatives. In my experience with complex models used in the oil and gas industry this is not a winning strategy.
The challenge facing Hawaii can be visualized through two charts which focus on renewable generation in 2012;
One notable aspect of these charts is the large discrepancy between the nameplate capacity and actual generation. The Geothermal facility on the Big Island represents only 6% of nameplate capacity and yet it generated 21% of the total renewable electricity during the year. The reason? Geothermal is reliable. In fact the Puna facility had a utilization rate of 80%. The same situation applies to the large waste-to-energy plant on Oahu which incinerates most of the solid waste generated on Hawaii's most populous Island and outputs up to 90 MW of electricity.
Wind energy generation is roughly equal to its proportion of nameplate capacity. That sounds promising until you consider that about 50% of that production takes place at night in periods of low demand. There are also frequent periods of relative calm so that relying upon wind is simply not feasible.
The area of most concern is with PV solar which happens to be the fastest growing source of renewable generation in the state. Up until now the many financial incentives implemented to encourage the installation of roof-top solar panels have been very effective. But the IRP acknowledges that when the amount of PV Solar at mid-day reaches a critical point there are problems;
"When the aggregate PV capacity is greater than 100% of minimum load, this could result in power flow from the generating facilities back toward the substation, negatively impacting equipment loading, voltage, system operational impacts, and protection of the Company's system."
The widespread adoption of roof-top solar is also resulting in significant economic inequities amongst HECO customers. This is something I discussed in a recent blog posting. The IRP describes the situation as follows;
"As the amount of installed rooftop PV grows within Hawaii, it is creating significant economic cost transfers between groups of Hawaii's citizens. These include the fact that Hawaii taxpayers are providing tax credit subsidies for new PV that do not accrue to non-PV owners; the feeder upgrade and operational requirements that increasing levels of PV impose upon utility customers; and as more PV owners (often more affluent citizens) generate their own energy, they leave fewer customers remaining on the utility system to pay for the fixed capital and operational non-energy costs of system operations."
So from both physical infrastructure and economic fairness perspectives a continuation of the current pace of PV installations does not appear to be sustainable in my opinion.
Geothermal on the Big Island can and should increase to become the main source of electricity there. That is great for the Big Island but there is no comparable Geothermal resource potential on the other Islands.
As noted, the charts above also highlight the significant contribution of the waste-to-energy plant on Oahu. However, the 2012 upgrade to this facility resulted in the vast majority of Oahu's solid waste being treated. There simply is no more waste to use in this type of facility.
Hydro, although it has a relatively high utilization rate, has been mostly developed so that there is very limited potential for further increases in generation from that source.
The big "Other" category in the charts consists primarily of a single large bio-diesel plant (the Campbell Industrial Park Generation Station) which is run rarely as a peaking plant. The cost of the biodiesel fuel is too high to justify continuous operation and as a result the plant had a utilization rate of only 2% in 2012.
The
only other renewable mentioned prominently in the
IRP is wind and that is problematic for many
reasons. Not only is it an unreliable source
but it is very highly variable with wind
changing intensity and direction frequently and
dramatically.
The small, isolated grids in Hawaii would be very
difficult to stabilize if large amounts of wind
generation were incorporated. The IRP also
states that the best wind resources are on the
smaller Islands such as Lanai while the major load
center is Honolulu. The cost to lay submarine
transmission cables between the Islands is very
substantial.
All things considered the HECO IRP does not present anything close to a realistic plan to move Hawaii away from burning residual fuel oil to generate electricity. The "Strategist" computer model is obviously good at generating many graphs and tables of data. Whether any of the output really makes sense is another question.
I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at different scenarios for the Hawaiian Islands and proposed a different approach in a blog posting with the title "Hawaii Renewables facing Cross-currents and Headwinds". I believe that Concentrated Solar Power plants with Thermal Energy Storage represent the best option for the state.
Comments
Copyright © 1996-2013 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energybiz.com
http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/09/hawaiian-electric-company-dreaming-big-renewables-plan
HECO
While I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, I do thank you for being a voice of reason at an insane time. My concern is more related to America's and more specifically HECO's preparedness for renewables.
It is possible to connect renewables to the electrical grid. There is some hope that renewables (solar and wind) to be a path past peak oil, energy independence, greener power, and reduced dependence on fossil fuel (coal etc.). However, it is critical for people to understand that the electrical infrastructure was designed and build to deliver power from large generating facilities to end customers. In other words, the distribution system was designed for a one directional flow of electricity going to the customer.
With that said, it is possible to have reverse flow (coming from the customer to the system) on the system with careful planning, design and system improvements when necessary. There are some critical things that need to be understood in order to do so. One of which is to know what infrastructure exists. Another of which is to know what electrical loads are actually out there at any given time.
One might figure that a monthly bill is evidence that the utility knows how much power is delivered at any given time. Well that assumption is misleading. The monthly bill is an aggregate of the total energy delivered over the period of a month. It tells nothing about how much electrical demand there was at noon on Sunday the 1st for example. In order to be prepared for renewables it is important for the utility to know for each feeder and each station how much power demand there is for every hour of every day.
In this article:
http://www.irecusa.org/2013/09/irec-applauds-hawaiian-utility-for-easing-access-to-solar-power/
"IREC Applauds Hawaiian Utility for Easing Access to Solar Power"
They are referring to HECO increasing the threshold for small systems, to 100% of the daytime minimum load (DML) for circuits. The threshold had previously been 75%. Great, they are making things easier for customers to connect their rooftop solar to the HECO system.
The article quotes Tim Lindl: “The utility’s new framework will allow more people in Hawai‘i to connect rooftop solar systems more quickly and at lower costs,” said IREC’s attorney Tim Lindl. “The changes outlined by HECO will enhance the State’s reputation as a shining light for solar energy.”
It all sounds great. HECO has effectively increased the speed limit. Everyone is happy right?
The speedometer at a utility is called the SCADA system. The SCADA system monitors loading, voltage and other parameters at different points of the electrical grid. Ideally SCADA would be at every substation monitoring every circuit. At a minimum to be prepared for renewables and to be able to enforce the 100% DML limit SCADA should be at every station where there is solar connecting to the system.
In HECO's case FAR LESS THAN HALF of the substations have SCADA. Further of the stations where SCADA is installed it is not always set up to monitor every circuit. In other words, HECO does not have good information about what their Daily Minimum Load is. Therefore, increasing the threshold from 75% to 100% DML has just taken them from a somewhat safe position of conservatism that took into account the lack of good data to a position of significantly higher risk. The new guideline could easily impact everyone on the circuits where 100% DML is permitted and potentially the entire HECO system.
HECO has increased the speed limit, but does not have a speedometer! They don't know with much accuracy what speed they are really going. Without SCADA monitoring each feeder they don’t know what the peak load is let alone what the Daytime Minimum Load is. Let me say that again,
HECO HAS INCREASED THE SPEED LIMIT BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE A SPEEDOMETER WHILE DRIVING AS CLOSE TO THEIR NEW SPEED LIMIT AS THEY CAN!
Unfortunately it appears as if HECO is simply caving to public pressure, interest group pressure such as IREC, Public Utility Commission pressure, and Legislature pressure. None of whom know details of the HECO system. None of whom are accountable if the HECO system collapses or starts having serious problems as a result of the high penetrations of renewables. If or when it all goes to hell HECO will be on the hook not the public, interest groups, PUC or the legislature. Is there anyone watching the till at HECO? Is there any executive at HECO that understands the risks that they are taking? Is there any good judgment left at HECO?
Simply installing SCADA at every station so that it monitors every circuit will provide the information that they so critically need when they are making these kinds of decisions. SCADA is not cheap, but it is far cheaper than the problems that they are setting themselves up for.