Smart grid more attractive, post-Japan?
Political stalemates on new generation favor efficiency
The simplest possible observation at this stage on the Japanese nuclear crisis is that it complicates the argument for major investment in new nuclear power in the United States and, probably to some degree, favors all other generation sources.
But the situation also may boost the argument for electric grid efficiencies at the transmission and distribution level, including efficiencies and curtailment at the end-user level.
Of course, pronouncements over events still unfolding are always precarious and my first statement may well be proven wrong. But some facts in the Japanese situation actually do underscore the value of grid efficiencies down to the end-user, regardless of the power source.
Consider these facts, courtesy of World Nuclear News:
- Japan derives about 30 percent of its electricity from 54 nuclear reactors
- 7 of those 54 reactors were down for routine maintenance when the earthquake and tsunami struck on March 11
- 4 more reactors were disabled during the disaster and remain unstable
- More than one-third of Japan's nuclear-generated power is now unavailable
As for the 70 percent of Japan's power generated from fossil fuels, including coal, oil and liquefied natural gas, as well as hydroelectric facilities, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the country's largest utility, reported yesterday that 12 thermal power units and 22 hydroelectric units had been knocked out by the earthquake last Friday.
All this meant that only 33 gigawatts of capacity were available to meet 37 gigawatts of demand on the day of the earthquake, resulting in power outages to 2.4 million households. Two days later, that number was down to 260,000 households. On Sunday, however, Japanese authorities asked industrial electricity users to temporarily reduce demand and Tepco said it had applied three-hour rolling blackouts to successive portions of its service territory to balance the system.
In fact, Junichi Abe, senior writer for the nation's largest newspaper (Yomiuri Shimbun), wrote in the Daily Yomiuri Online yesterday that Tepco and the Japanese government were at fault for the "man-made disaster" of rolling blackouts. Despite the natural causes that led to power shortages, this writer said, Tepco and the government should have consulted large industrial power users "on their energy saving plans and determined power demand based on this, before making plans for the outages," which included shutting down Tokyo's rail service.
In other words, if demand response plans were in place, the utility could have avoided cutting power to Tokyo's rail service, which apparently compounded the national sense of confusion and resulting economic fallout.
Coincidentally, I spoke recently with Mark Martinez, manager of business planning and strategy at Southern California Edison, on the subject of demand response and it became clear that his utility's demand response portfolio has many options. Some may be applied to day-ahead spikes in wholesale prices, while other options may be used to respond to events such as transmission line failures—i.e., the sort of sudden, unplanned emergencies for which Japan is becoming the unwitting poster child.
So, while politicians and pundits in the U.S. may debate the impact that Japan's crisis will have on our domestic nuclear industry, one lesson appears to be clear: energy efficiency and demand response plans aren't all about air-conditioning loads on hot summer afternoons. These approaches can pay dividends under catastrophic emergency situations.
Coupled with grid modernization—the intelligence and technologies that make electrical grids more efficient, reliable and visible down to the end-user—an approach whose costs are also hotly debated, this toolkit of options would better prepare our grids for the next emergency. After all, California does sit on the leading edge of a continental plate.
Phil Carson
Editor-in-chief
Intelligent Utility Daily
pcarson@energycentral.com
303-228-4757
Comments
Good point, but....
Two thoughts here, Jack.
First, every utility today has a circuit-level set of priorities that come into play, should rolling blackouts become necessary. No need to reach beyond the meter for this level of emergency response.
Second, in the Japanese example, it appears that rolling blackouts were indeed implemented, but without a clear sense of priority that matched the situation. I.e., shutting down rail service in Tokyo might have had greater psychological and economic impact than shuttering an auto mamufacturing plant for a day.
Your points well taken. I raise you two.
Regards, Phil Carson
Smart Grid Post Japan
If a similar catastrophe struck California today, the results would be a bit more benign. With the exception of four nuclear plants, most of California's major power generating facilities are located away from the coast. There are 14,000 MW of fossil-fired plants near the coast, but these are used relatively infrequently. San Onofre anchors the Southern California grid electrically, but at the moment California has around a 30% summer reserve margin and the surplus is much higher most of the year.
Demand response would clearly be useful during a supply shortage, but at what cost? Will the public, already unhappy over the cost impact of GHG and other environmental initiatives, be willing to spend money on an event that is highly improbable? Are there less expensive, equally effective ways to implement curtailments and rolling blackouts? Would residential and industrial customers be comfortable with the idea that utilities could actually reach into their premises for any "emergency"?
In the heat of a crisis there tends to be a lot of finger-pointing. I'm not convinced catastrophe management is a reason to impose mandates that would allow utilities to reach beyond the meter. Instead, we should be educating consumers about what they can do and we should be laying a rational, choice-driven foundation for consumers to adopt energy efficiency and demand management in the same way they adopt any other consumer technology.
Jack Ellis, Tahoe City, CA