Almost a year and a half ago, I wrote about the increasing stress on the grid due to increasing demand and retreating supply. Since then, there has been almost no new construction of power plants.
During the heat of July and August 2020, we had another three maximum generation events on the regional grid. There was a time when three events in 10 years was rare. These “max gen” events call upon every available generator to put electricity into the grid over a 15-state region. These are generators of every fuel type, even antiquated but functional diesel peaking units.
This summer, for the first time in its history, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative generated more electricity than was used by the five distribution cooperatives it serves. Natural gas peaking designed to meet occasional high demand periods ran around the clock in July and August to support the regional grid that desperately needed resources to meet consumer needs.
Wolverine has 200 MW of wind in its portfolio. In July 2020, when the power was needed the most, there was only enough wind for about 2 MW of energy. I don’t report this to disparage wind turbines. I report this to point out what is a common occurrence every July—there is very little wind. Fossil fuel generation like coal and natural gas are needed to keep the lights on. It is simply a fact.
Well then, what about solar? Isn’t the sun always shining in July and August? The sun certainly does shine for a good part of the day, but demand is still high after sunset. Once again, the traditional generation is needed to generate electricity when solar can’t deliver. Battery technology is coming along but far from utility-scale.
So, what is going to happen? There are a number of simple options. The region needs to build more generation of all types. Large wind developers have been chased out of Michigan. This needs to stop, as does opposition to utility-scale solar. Clean energy advocates need to step up, find locations that work, and put in the effort necessary to bring large projects to fruition.
Other utilities are planning for more natural gas generation. I expect this construction to ramp up over the next couple of years. Permitting for natural gas is a path of least resistance, and natural gas generators take up less real estate (the biggest complaint of large-scale wind and solar). In no scenario do I see our region moving away from a reliance on natural gas.
What about the dirty old coal plants that are shutting down? Well, if we don’t build solar, wind and natural gas generation in large amounts and the grid needs power, we will see these old plants continue to operate. Yes, I can hear the screaming now. It will come from the same people who did nothing as anti-wind groups chased the large developers from Michigan.
After energy conservation, our last resort will be to simply turn the lights out during periods of high demand. We call these “rolling blackouts.” California is seeing them in 2020. It frustrates me, but I think Michigan could see them within the next five years. Yes, I can’t believe I just typed that. It makes me sad.
The clock is ticking, and it’s ticking to black.
No doubt about it Tony, we need dirty old coal plants. Doggone clean air restrictions! How’s that emphysema working for our grandkids and great grandkids? How about that mountain top removal and groundwater pollution in eastern states and aquifer defiling and land raping in western states? And which pro-wind or solar group do you belong to? Where in your diatribe is the word conservation? Hear my screaming now.
Mr. Granlund – I didn’t say we “needed” dirty coal plants. I said that if we don’t build wind, solar and natural gas, coal plants will be forced to run to keep the lights on. It is simple math. People need to know what is happening before we ever get to that day. I don’t need to belong to a pro wind or pro solar group. Cherryland’ s renewable portfolio says it all. There isn’t a utility in Michigan who has a cleaner portfolio. Conservation is a given. Cherryland has been promoting conservation for decades. Conservation simply does not take care of the growth in electric usage we see in our region due to the influx of people.
I’m wondering if it would be of help if more people added solar to their private homes? We added a large amount of solar to our property a little over 2years ago. Our winter bills are still rather high but our summer bills usually provide credit. I can’t help but believe our solar takes a bit of stress off Cherryland. We have a geothermal heating/cooling system.
Solar on private homes would certainly help. It is still expensive for the average home owner. Solar can help in a small way but until the price drops, I don’t see home solar significantly making a difference. That said, we are looking at utility scale solar projects inside and outside of Michigan that could have an impact if they get built.
Why don’t you pay more to the people who actually have sar on their property, that help off set the demand for your energy. This might encourage people to purchase more solar panels themselves!
We pay for the avoided cost of wholesale power in order to be fair to all members and avoid a subsidy that some don’t want to pay. We subsidized solar for decades to get it started and until prices dropped to today’s lower levels. At some point, every form of generation needs to stand alone without a subsidy.
Tony, please tell us what we, as individual residents, can do to help – specifically.
I, too, wonder if individual solar power on residences could help.
Please follow up
Individuals need to talk to their elected officials about zoning and siting of wind and solar on a bigger scale than just individual homes. As individual home solar goes, there isn’t much an individual can do about the price of the product in the market except for encouraging people to explore their options and get multiple prices from vendors.
Interesting read.
It’s a little frustrating that nuclear remains off the table and isn’t even something we bother discussing anymore. In terms of safety (deaths / diseases per per unit of energy), it’s still the best option, even ahead of solar and wind (once maintenance and construction materials like rare earths are factored in).
One thing I keep wondering when I read about utility scale solar is why the multi-acre parking lots in front of big box stores don’t get covered with solar mounted above vehicle level. Would the mounting be too expensive?
It’s really frustrating that the wind projects in Michigan are moving so slowly, and especially so when you fly over Michigan and then over Ontario, and see how our Canadian neighbors have clearly built a ton. That said, I certainly wouldn’t want a 500 foot structure immediately behind my house, either, so I can understand some of the opposition. It’s a big state, with plenty of empty farm fields where a turbine won’t bother anybody and a farmer might want some extra lease revenue. It seems like DTE was pushing too hard in the wrong place.
Almost 40% of the Cherryland power supply portfolio is nuclear through a contract with an Illinois company. I concur with your frustration in regards to nuclear. It is clean and operates around the clock which wind and solar can not do.
Mounting solar over parking lots is expensive. Then, there is a location issue. The solar needs to get to the grid. Sometimes this can be an expensive option due to the distance to an appropriate substation or transmission line.
The back yard issue with wind is the biggest problem. People want clean and renewable but not in their backyard. This doesn’t help us move away from coal.
Interesting, I didn’t know that. Purely for curiosity about how the grid is set up, are those nuclear plants in IL? What states are we sharing a power grid with?
Thinking locally about the massive parking lot outside the Traverse City Meijer, in which there’s a bunch of electric car charging stations (which hint there must be lots of power transmission capacity) and it’s a half mile to the hospital (which I hope has redundant connections to the power grid), would locations like that work in terms of grid tie in? If so, why isn’t it happening?
Obviously that’s private property so you need to incentivize the property owner to either own the panels or lease the space to a utility, so not without hurdles, but those hurdles seem easier to overcome than permitting new generating plants or long distance power transmission lines (which presumably you’d have to do if you build a bunch of wind turbines out in the middle of nowhere).
The nuclear contracts we have are out of Illinois. Michigan shares a regional power grid with 14 others states. The Meijer lot is a possibility as is Munson. Those are facilities served by Consumers Energy. While I can’t speak for them, I can speculate that it is likely a cost consideration. Solar over a parking lot is more expensive than solar in an open field. Then, solar in Michigan is only effective during part of the year. Property owner hurdles have proven to be the hardest to overcome. Some would rather see the long transmission line as long as the poles and wires are not in their back yard. It almost always comes down to the back yard.
One more question. I just read that Exelon is shuttering two nuclear plants (Dresden and Byron) in 2021. What foreseeable impact will that have on availability, if we are already at max generating more frequently during the summer?
Do you think Exelon will actually follow through on that plan?
Thanks for all the information.
They are scheduled to be shuttered and I expect that it will happen. It will impact availability unless more generation is built in the interim. At a minimum, natural gas plants designed to operate during peak periods will simply have to run longer and more often. The only thing that might prevent these nuclear plants from closing is a state or federal subsidy but that is a very long shot. This is an example as to why I wrote the column. The math simply points to a growing problem in the next 5 years.
Sorry for more questions, but curiosity is nagging me.
Do you have any specific figures about how much more it costs to install solar in a green field? What about above a parking lot (as basically a shade above parking spots)? What about on the roof of a big box building (Meijer, Costco, airplane hangars at the airport)?
A field with solar panels in it is making electricity, but it can’t be used to grow produce or graze animals anymore (with wind, you get to do both); I am really curious about just what that math looks like: is the land more valuable for solar electricity, or for farming? I love solar, but like most people here, I also love how the nature looks, and don’t want to see endless fields of panels.
While hard to quantify economically, there are some comfort benefits as well to providing shade above a big parking lot. That lot generates sweltering heat in the summer (it’s not impossible to have triple digit temps, even on an otherwise pleasant day), whereas solar panels could provide shade for cars. It’s a small thing, but maybe that could tip the balance if the economics are close. Everybody that turns on air conditioning in the summer is basically paying for comfort, so maybe it’s easier to justify something that would mean you need a little less a/c in the car when you get back in.
Thank you again for the perspective from the utility. I’m also really happy and encouraged to see the responses, that so many of us CE members are thinking about these things too.
I don’t have specific numbers. From experience, i know that a large solar array near the ground is the least expensive way to go. It is a sheer volume game. The more panels, the larger the array, the lower you can drive the costs down. Cherryland’s community solar project by the office started with an idea of covering the parking lot so employees would not have snow on their cars after a long day. In the end, we couldn’t justify the extra cost as it put the payback out more than 25 years. Meijer, Costco and airplane hangers will have similar issues and then there is the matter of getting the electricity to the grid. A large field near a substation and transmission line will always be the lowest cost option. Some solar fields are using goats and sheep to graze the ground underneath in order to utilize the lost pasture to some extent. The value of solar vs farming is a great question with different answers per person. Solar provides a known lease payment per year while farming does not. Solar takes tillable land out of food production. I don’t like that either. I too enjoy looking at nature rather than large solar fields. The problem comes down to how do we/you/us/everyone want to generate our electricity and what sacrifices are we willing to make. I would completely support solar over all parking areas but the cost doesn’t justify it at this time. It always comes down to the fact that there is not one easy solution. We must continue to use all the energy sources in a balanced way to reduce our carbon footprint. The point of the column was to make it clear that we need to do a better job in responsibly building all generation sources. If we don’t, there are consequences. While some don’t appreciate my message, I can’t have anyone saying to me in the future, “Why didn’t you say anything?” Thank you for the great questions and dialogue. It is appreciated.
We have one of the largest freshwater supplies in the world and rivers that flow into that. Tell me why we don’t have hydroelectric power? Oh that’s right, the earth muffins don’t like that either….. Back in the 70’s they said we would run out of fossil fuel in 5 years and that the earth would be a frozen wasteland global cooling, then in the 90’s they said global warming would put us all underwater because of co2 even though water vapor accounts for over 80% of the “warming” of the earth and the planets temps are controlled by the sun mainly. Now we are hearing it’s climate change oh the sky is falling again… meanwhile China and India have the dirtiest air on the planet from all their power plants and manufacturing industries, and not one earth muffin says boo about it! Build what we need and stop whining about dirty air and oh the sky is falling! Give me a break. Don’t worry when we have another carrington event like we did in 1859, this discussion will be mute. Because congress won’t act to harden our grid, we are at the mercy of the sun or emp weapon! So until we get the “green” which is nothing more than old RED from the motherland, we will continue to struggle with energy problems. God has control of all of it, and until we get back to the proper worship of Him in our society and honor His laws both natural and divine, we will continue to go backward into collapse on all fronts!!!
Distributed generation by generation ‘on the spot’ with individual solar will take the ‘peak’ down. We need more utility push, government incentives and public awareness to have it make sense for the people.
Since increase of demand is nothing new, it is not fair to blame people. Utilities have seen this coming from way back and it is time they take ownership of this problem and offer people education and bigger incentives to help them solve the problem.
Better give Biden a call as he appears to be the expert on energy in our country. No more fossil fuels should be used according to him. Green New Deal and Global Warming are scare tactics. History and science has shown that thousands of years ago when man was barely on the earth, there were global heating and cooling cycles. Some of these were dramatic. Now we have “the sky is falling” mentality. Good ole Chicken Little. The average man on the street is uneducated on these issues and thinks it is someone else’s job to take care of it. And then there are the big fools in Congress who have no business being there in the first place who never researched anything and are only interested in opening their mouths to draw attention to themselves. I hope those folks stay away from Michigan. By their tongues we should be contacting them in Minnesota, or New York, or California because they have ALL of the answers. We can see that they do the way their states are being run.
Michael you are right on! Unfortunately too much of our voting public is more concerned with personalities than the big picture of what those running are really wanting to do! There are many possibilities to resolve our future issue. But first folks need to be educated and not provided worst case scare tactics based on political opportunities.
Thanks Tony. I admire and appreciate your straightforward, informative column. Neither preaching nor coming across as condescending, you continue to educate us, the customers and nudge us to get involved. Keep up the good work!
Just learned recently that there is no way to recycle the windmills that are no longer working, is this true? Solar seems like the best clean option but, we don’t always see the sun in Michigan. John’s idea about hydroelectric sounds like a very good idea with the water we have available in Michigan,is there a downfall to that?
I don’t have any experience with recycling windmills but I have to believe there is a way to do that. In today’s world, there are lots of possibilities. Hydroelectric is absolutely the best renewable resource because it runs 24 hours a day and doesn’t pollute. The problem is that damming up a river changes the habitat surrounding the watershed and the flow of the river. There are groups that strongly oppose any changes to any river. Then, there is a volume of water issue. The bigger the river, the bigger the potential for energy production – the more energy you can produce, the cheaper the power can be. We have not built a new hydro facility in Michigan in decades. I don’t expect this to happen in my lifetime. What could happen is a better electrical connection to Canada that would allow us to access the hydro in place there already – especially in the summer months when it is not needed in Canada and we are seeing high demands in months like July.
Germany is the world leader in Solar production. They have been for years. Michigan gets 8% more Sunlight hrs per year than Germany, due to the fact that we are lower on the Latitude line. Owning your own Solar is definitely the answer. It’s the cleanest form of Green energy. There is No maintenance, and with the Battery back up, you have power in the event of a Power outage or Black Out. Plus you pull from your Battery when the sun goes down before pulling from the Grid. This takes the stress off the Grid.
It’s definitely affordable with the ITC Tax credit (22% next year) and the incentives. Check out Powerhome Solar.
When it comes to small solar installations, customer service is very important. I would encourage people to check out all their options and not just one company. As far as I know, Powerhome Solar is not a local company. In the Cherryland service territory, there are multiple local installers to choose from.
For the record, the price for electricity in Germany is 3X what Cherryland charges us. Be careful what you wish for.
Interesting that Nuclear was brought up again. Yes it’s clean and reliable and more efficient than in the past. People are just scared
of the waste even though some very good safe solutions have been proposed. I wonder what people would think and/or say if they knew the existing waste is sitting on site of all running and shutdown plants. It’s time to build new nuclear plants!
This is a fair ask to us members: “Individuals need to talk to their elected officials about zoning and siting of wind and solar on a bigger scale than just individual homes. ”
In my view it is a good idea to have our government pursue researching and prototyping better nuclear options. The existing nuclear plants have a waste disposal problem with which we have not dealt. Existing designs also present very nasty risks, even with very well run operators as we have seen at Fukushima and Three Mile Island. I cannot encourage more current technology nuclear plants but we should work on better nuclear technology. Tony is right that wind and solar cannot do the whole job.
As a member I encourage energy saving, even at a significant cost premium. I am all for incentive programs. That said, it will not be enough.
As a member, I encourage wind and solar even at a significant cost premium. That said, I accept that neither is good for peak demand. Energy storage needs more work, which we should encourage. For now, I regretfully accept that we will need more natural gas plants.
Rolling black outs encourage folks to start buying their own backup generators. This is expensive and not environmentally sound. I am sure that Tony will tell you that he can provide electricity at a much lower cost and environmental cost than you can by using your own gasoline or gas generator, even if he has to add a gas plant.
Well said and spot on. Thank you
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Have you heard about an elegant solution to this type of problem?
Generac now offers software to home owners so they can sell power back to the grid when demand exceeds supply.
This is a win – win solution for the home owner and the utility.
The home owner can mitigate the cost of an emergency generator, and the utility can for go the cost of stand by generators during peak demand for a couple of days a year.
Having hundreds of small generators putting power onto the grid at random times could be problematic and not as reliable as central station electricity.
So, what your saying is that we will become California soon. Rolling blackouts, etc. Well liberals you all deserve this. Perhaps Detroit could shut its power off so that the rest of the state can have steady electricity. Liberals have no problem with making the rest of the state suffer under regulations not allowing power generation.
With electric cars being the future, and our gas engines being outlawed by the left how will you be able to generate enough power to meet the demand? You will not. Back to the horse and buggy, and you had better pay your carbon tax for the animal farts.
Tony – I thought this was a refreshingly honest commentary. Thank you. I am surprised, however, that there is little discussion about the use of hydrogen fuel cells to power and heat our houses. Sure, we do not have a hydrogen economy yet but, as I am sure you know, the technology is in place. Isn’t that the (clean) future? – though it may decentralize power production and distribution…
Allis Chalmers had a hydrogen fuel cell tractor in the 1950s. Hydrogen for home generators was the “next thing” in the 1990s. I guess I need more proof that it has indeed arrived at an affordable and reliable level. I don’t have that proof today.
Tony, I am a retired Chief Engineer in the merchant marine and found your article of great interest. My job was to provide and maintain propulsion systems, electrical power, HVAC, fresh water, process sewage and many other logistical services to the vessels. As I frequently told junior engineers “Don’t let emotion cloud your assessment of the facts-just stick to the facts of a problem and try to remove vitriolic reactions to a situation” I believe everything you said regarding this issue and it must be frustrating when you are warning the population of an upcoming major supply interruption (as California had recently) and no one believes it. It is definitely coming. We seem to be far too polarized to assess what is certainly coming in a rational way and arrive at a long term solution. rearranging our energy policy with each administration makes it impossible for power companies to make long term plans to reduce our rates and maintain expensive equipment. It cannot be done on short term when the studies alone take years and the permits even longer. Renewable energy sources are a great way to reduce your dependence on fossil fuel and nuclear energy, but I know without a doubt that you need 100% of power demand available from a fixed source first and then begin attacking the supply/demand problem through alternative means, which include reduction of usage at the residential level. When the power goes out, it will hurt those who are most vulnerable, as usual in these things which is all the more the tragedy. I believe that you are not an alarmist and hope that we have a serious discussion soon before the inevitable happens. The people won’t decide when this occurs. Isaac Newton will do that for us. Good luck and don’t give up the fight.
Thank you for the kind words. Have a great weekend.
Question for you, Tony: Who “chased away” the wind developers, and for what prescribed reasons? Perhaps the following has something to do with it?
“The renewable electricity PTC is a per kWh credit for electricity generated using qualified energy resources. However, for wind facilities that began construction during 2017, the credit is reduced by 20%. The credit is reduced by 40% for wind facilities that began construction in 2018, reduced by 60% for facilities that began construction in 2019, and reduced by 40% for wind facilities that begin construction in 2020.”
Township residents and organized anti-wind groups chased away the wind developers. We had a project that had approval then had approval pulled out from under them. This cost us a 10% increase in our renewable portfolio. After spending considerable time and money without success, the developers simply moved on to other states where it is easier. The PTC has always been a factor in wind energy, no question. Regardless of its status, we would have had more wind in Michigan if not for changes in township zoning and the strong anti wind opposition.
Two years ago, the Cherryland/Wolverine response to this issue was to eliminate true solar net metering for their customers. This eliminated any financial incentive to install solar. Please don’t whine about lack of solar installations on the Cherryland grid when you are the primary cause. DTE joined the cause to eliminate small solar with similar policies and Consumers Energy will soon make Michigan the most unfriendly place for solar in the country. Cherryland sees customer-based solar as a profit center where they can pay less than half the retail rate and charge neighbors full retail for local generation. Annual profits to Cherryland are $2-3 million per year for this scheme. All on the backs of well- meaning customers who installed solar.
Tom – You know that our change in net metering was not a response to this issue. As you know, all Cherryland members were subsidizing those who put solar onto our system for almost two decades. We simply changed the price that new installations get from full retail to our cost of wholesale power. You also know that we grandfathered in everyone getting the subsidized price for the life of their system. Thus, no members were harmed due to the change in policy. Solar panels costs dropped dramatically and no longer needed to be subsidized by others. This was the biggest reason for the change. At some point, every form of generation has to survive at market prices. Now, what has the market done over the past two years that you reference? It has seen co-op members install the same amount of solar as they did during the subsidized years. The market says that the change from full retail to a wholesale equivalent did not decrease member interest. My most recent column was referring to utility scale installations and not rooftop solar. Rooftop solar will never support the grid to any meaningful level. Finally, you also know that your $2-3 million dollar figure is absolutely false. We serve many solar vendors. You are the only one who has ever campaigned against the net metering change. I appreciated your dogged effort but would sincerely appreciate that you not spread the falsehoods that have continually failed to win your argument. Sincerely Tony Anderson