Smoke Sends US Northeast Solar Power Plunging By 50% As Wildfires Rage In Canada - Slashdot

Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

Smoke Sends US Northeast Solar Power Plunging By 50% As Wildfires Rage In Canada (reuters.com) 90

Longtime Slashdot reader WindBourne writes: "A shroud of smoke has sent solar power generation in parts of the eastern US plummeting by more than 50% as wildfires rage in Canada," reports Bloomberg. "Solar farms powering New England were producing 56% less energy at times of peak demand compared with the week before, according to the region's grid operator. Electricity generated by solar across the territory serviced by PJM Interconnection LLC, which spans Illinois to North Carolina, was down about 25% from the previous week."

Not mentioned in the article is that the wind generator output has also dropped. ["Wind power also dropped to 5% of total generation so far this week versus a recent high of 12% during the windy week ended May 12," reports Reuters. "That forced power generators to boost the amount of electricity generated by gas to 45% this week, up from around 40% in recent weeks."]

If forest fires can cut PV output by 50%, what would happen in real disasters when a nation most needs their electricity -- especially as we convert from fossil fuels (stored energy) to electricity? This will hopefully have politicians thinking in terms of national security, as well as anthropogenic global warming, when it comes to western grids.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smoke Sends US Northeast Solar Power Plunging By 50% As Wildfires Rage In Canada

Comments Filter:
  • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @01:08AM (#63590516) Homepage

    If forest fires can cut PV output by 50%, what would happen in real disasters when a nation most needs their electricity

    Then we turn up the nukes!

    • Re:Disaster (Score:5, Funny)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @03:31AM (#63590636)

      Look I know it sucks when an other country upsets your energy balance but nuking Canada seems a bit excessive no?

      • Excessive? It's the American way.
      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        Look if we brought just enough force to get it done then lots of kids would have to go without bb guns and sling shots.

        I mean it would have been a little more difficult but now that their dictator has disarmed them they are down to pointy sticks for defense and the half that could kill a bear with a pointy stick rather than just killing themselves with it would likely switch sides in exchange for a decent rifle.

    • Maybe we should use nukes to put out the fire? Somewhat like blowing out a candle. We can move the Canadians to Wyoming.
      • Nah, that's overkill. Just make Canada cut down all of their boreal forest and the forest fire smoke problem will be solved forever.

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        This sounds like the Russian suggestion for the gulf problem, just nuke the fucking hole and hope it gets better.

      • Maybe we should use nukes to put out the fire? Somewhat like blowing out a candle. We can move the Canadians to Wyoming.

        Naw. Nukes are reserved for taking out hurricanes [theguardian.com].

    • The Matrix. Something, something, scorched the sky, something.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Nukes can't cope well with forest fires either. They need a constant supply of water for cooling, and they need HVAC. HVAC filters get clogged up fast when the air is thick with particles.

      Same applies to many fossil plants and large industrial operations.

      Visibility can also be an issue as for safety reasons some stuff needs to be monitored visually.

      Really the only solution for keeping the lights on is to have good long distance transmission, so power can be produced well away from the fires.

      • Nuclear power plants have systems and plans in place for dealing with active on-site operation during an ongoing nuclear event, in which its assumed that there is radioactive particulate present and workers need to be partially or fully bunkered to limit exposure. Wildfires pose virtually no risk to nuclear plant operation, beyond the potential for offset transmission to be disrupted.

        Similarly thermal limits on cooling water are virtually always for ecological reasons, to prevent disruption to aquatic wildl

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          In the event of a nuclear accident the plant shuts down as quickly as possible, it doesn't keep operating. No sane nuclear safety plan calls for other reactors to keep running if it can possibly be avoided, so the only situation where it would be attempted as a stop gap measure is when all other external power sources fail.

    • what would happen in real disasters when a nation most needs their electricity

      Well, as soon as this appears on the Republicans' radar, the answer will be either to build a wall, or to sue. Depending on whether it's Trump or DeSantis.

      Trump will want to build a wall to keep the smoke out, and will claim he will charge Canada for it.
      DeSantis will want to Canada's "most favourable trading partner" status because for illegal dumping of smoke, and then sue.

    • The solution is easier than nukes. Then we plunder oils from other countries.

  • Technically coal plants wouldn't have this problem.
    And technically right is the best kind of right.

    • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      Technically generating power by coal et al is what contributes to this happening in the first place. Ooooh I love this stuff, it's a real Rorschach test!

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        Generating power by coal causes Canadians to fail to maintain their forests and have wildfires?

      • Even Canadians admit it's from poor forest management. Apparently you imagined monsters in the Rorschach blot.
    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @02:30AM (#63590590) Journal

      Technically coal plants wouldn't have this problem.

      Yes, they have the exact same sort of problem with natural and man-made disasters. Coal plants have to be located near rivers for cooling water and the same increase in cloud cover due to global warming that reduces solar plant output also brings lots of rain that causes flooding that can take out your coal plant.

      If you also consider terrorism then a coal-fired power station is located on one site that could be severely damaged with a single explosive device knocking out the entire station and requiring significant repairs to fix. Compare that to a solar or wind farm where the generators are spread over a wide area. The best you could hope for there with a single device would be reducing the capacity a bit by knocking out some panels or a wind turbine.

      So by all means consider national security when pushing for power generation since I think the conclusion will be to support more renewables with the exception of hydro.

      • So far the terrorism thing seems to be limited to a few gormless white supremacists shooting at substations. Cyber-attacks seems to be more of an issue. Maybe they can get the power stations to upgrade from Windows XP?
      • If you also consider terrorism then a coal-fired power station is located on one site that could be severely damaged with a single explosive device knocking out the entire station and requiring significant repairs to fix. Compare that to a solar or wind farm where the generators are spread over a wide area. The best you could hope for there with a single device would be reducing the capacity a bit by knocking out some panels or a wind turbine.

        Modern nuclear plants are designed to withstand plane strikes. If that is your criteria they are among the hardest targets you will find anywhere.

        https://bigthink.com/the-prese... [bigthink.com]

      • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        "If you also consider terrorism then a coal-fired power station is located on one site that could be severely damaged with a single explosive device knocking out the entire station"

        Actually the renewables require storage to smooth out availability which is less distributed than coal generation and neutralizes the more distributed nature of renewable generation. Wind and Solar aren't really all that distributed anyway, especially wind. Sure you can have an ad-hoc small scale wind turbine but most of the gene

    • Except we need CLEAN energy now. And that is what is TECHNICALLY right.
      We have to quit burning hydrocarbons. The problem is that we are going at it all wrong because of extremists in our 2 major parties.
      What is funny is that I have written on here multiple times over the last 5-10 years about this issue and only now, are people paying attention.
      HOPEFULLY, CONgress critters are paying attention.
    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Cutting down all the trees and burning them for energy would solve this problem too, no wildfires on empty barren land.

  • Just FUD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @01:18AM (#63590534) Homepage Journal

    This is just another anti-solar FUD story.

    Yes, it's an issue, but it's no different from a big weather pattern that reduces solar due to clouds over a large area. The solutions are the same as always: Expand the grid to be able to pull in power from a larger area, maintain a mix of renewable sources, and include storage in to cover shortfalls.

    We have the data for wind and solar production effectiveness throughout the country going back many years. And we can fairly accurately determine what it would have been going back a century based on weather records. So it's just a matter of running the data to see what we would need to have to ensure sufficient power supplies with different source mixes, storage options, and grid upgrades. Toss in cost estimates for all the options, and optimize it to get a plan.

    • Not only that but the impact is highest at peak output. Your peak output might drop by half , but energy for the day drops by ~20%. Everybody knows you have to over-provision with solar or wind, but it is not a huge impact to payback.

      • Peak demand is late afternoon, when solar power is diminishing as the sun goes down. More air for the sunlight to go through, so more scattering when the air is smokey. The solution is what it always has been - store the excess midday energy for the afternoon and evening.

        • Peak demand is late afternoon, when solar power is diminishing as the sun goes down.
          Perhaps at your place.

          For every other place: it is a completely different story when peak demand is.

          So: perhaps you want to look up when peak demand is at the place in question, and then tell us if you were right or wrong.

        • Peak demand is late afternoon, when solar power is diminishing as the sun goes down.

          Is that really peak demand? Or is is peak demand on the distribution network?

          All those residential systems are generating power that is used by the same houses, thus masking their own demand.

          Then, there is another issue with measurement of demand, that those residential solar systems are providing power to their neighbors, so reducing demand on the grid. It's possible to calculate this, assuming everyone has a smartmeter, but I suspect that this measurement is not normally done.

    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @02:11AM (#63590570) Journal

      This is just another anti-solar FUD story.

      Yes it is but it is a really stupid one because the solution to this problem is more solar and renewables, not less. If we can reduce and eventually eliminate our impact on global warming it will reduce temperatures resulting in less cloud cover and fewer forest fires.

      As far as war and disasters go solar and wind are far more robust than just about anything else because they are distributed. To take out a solar or wind farm you need devastation over a wide area. To take out a fossil fuel power station you only need to hit one building...and often that building is located near a river for cooling water which is more likely to flood than the tops of hills and on flat plains away from rivers where wind and solar are located.

      • Agreed. The other factor here is energy storage. That's the current Achilles Heel of renewables. It's coming, but we're still a decade or two away from grid scale storage that can sustain multi-day reductions like a week of 50% reduction.
      • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @03:01AM (#63590616) Journal
        Wrong.
        Nothing stupid about it. It is important to see the issues with those that continue to push Wind/PV as the only answers.
        National security dictates that we have an energy matrix, not depend on just 1 type of energy (and wind/PV are BOTH dependent on the sun, which is easy enough to block).
        As to distributed wind/PV, that is NOT the case. The far left continues to push for utility level PV, which Ukraine, Texas and California has shown nicely that it is a fool's errand to do so. Instead, it IS good to distribute PV on residential buildings, along with parking lots, etc.

        Still the real lesson is to use ALL OF THE ABOVE within the clean energy category. That means nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, and PV. Down the road, perhaps tidal will be there.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Of course it's stupid. The solution is more long distance transmission lines and more renewable energy. Nuclear plants can't operate properly or at all in these conditions either.

          WindBorne, you and your sock puppets constantly post these kinds of stories and comments. You then mod yourself up, and your critics down. If your beloved nuclear really was so great you wouldn't need to do this.

          Don't give us all that crap about "activists" screwing things up, If activists were really so powerful we would have stop

          • The one with sock puppets is you. The only time I go anonymous is when moderating. However, it is obvious that you do not give a shit about stopping AGW, just stopping nuclear due to your irrational fears and lack of education.
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              MacMann is one of your sock puppets. Who are mine? I'm sure they will chime in to protest.

              Anyway, this is another example of why you have lost the argument. There is no good faith engagement here, no explanation of why nuclear is actually quite affordable or what real problems need to be addressed to make it so. Just an accusation that I'm stupid.

        • wind/PV are BOTH dependent on the sun, which is easy enough to block)

          Our food supply is also dependent on the sun. If you block the sun for extended periods reduced electrical power will be the least of your worries. Fortunately, it is not at all easy to block the sun in a specified area for an extended period of time otherwise people would already have tried it.

          However, I do agree that nuclear and hydro are important components of a green energy strategy that, in the case of nuclear, are woefully ignored. However, neither is particularly great from a national security p

          • You need to add in geothermal energy as well.
            It has the ability to heat/cool building DIRT cheap, but also to generate electricity.
            Sadly, so many ppl MISS opportunties with this. Geothermal brings up a brine that is LOADED with elements. Instead of viewing them as a nightmare to get rid of, it is better to find new ways to seperate and concentrate them. IOW, mine them. I have seeen so many ppl gripe about the geysers which brings up the elements and just pulling them out, would clean up the water before r
    • And there it is. The extremists that do not look at facts and continues to push total BS.
      Here is a thought for you: what happens when it is one of the super volcanoes? Keep in mind that the idea of NATIONAL SECURITY is to think ahead and avoid issues.
      Choosing to bury your head in the sand and disregard facts is just as foolish as those that say that AGW is a non-issue.
      IOW, you are as bad, if not worse, then the far right .
  • Here in Washington state, during parts of many recent summers we've had to deal with significant California and Canadian wildfire smoke - to the degree that sometimes it would look like a cloudy day (if the smoke stayed high), or like a hazy fog that smelled like a campfire (when it mixed down to ground level). But seeing those pictures from New York... that just looks brutal. I don't think we've ever experienced quite that amount of smoke.

    • I moved to Mukilteo, Wash State last July from Colorado. If you are referring to last years fires, that was positively nothing.
      If you really want to see this, skip looking at NJ/NYC. They really are not getting it that bad. California and Colorado fires have produced worse conditions in Colorado front range than what you are seeing in NYC.

      BTW, the volcanoes here are far more 'interesting' in terms of block wind/PV output. When St. Helens went in the 80s, I lived 1K miles downwind from it. For multiple
      • Last year really was nothing. The two previous years were significant, though.

        • I wondered about that. So many ppl here were screaming and all I could think of, is this would be a quiet summer in Colorado in terms of forest fires.
    • I've taken photos in Seattle that closely resemble ones from NYC this week. E.g. on 9/11/2020 the Seattle skyline wasn't visible across Elliott Bay, and the Sun resembled a pale red-purple balloon floating in the haze. If I remember right the AQI hit upper 300s that day. I was wearing a respirator while I took the pictures... Last year's smoke season wasn't quite as bad but I still got some rather apocalyptic looking shots. The worst I've seen was in Oregon in September 2017. It was literally snowing big f

  • Nothingburger (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Saturday June 10, 2023 @02:35AM (#63590596) Journal

    If forest fires can cut PV output by 50%, what would happen in real disasters when a nation most needs their electricity

    If only we could somehow dim the sun in order to reduce electrical demand for air conditioning while the wildfires are raging. That would really be something, wouldn't it?

    • I don't know about you but my AC doesn't use anywhere near 50% of my daily power use. If you have an EV the use for charging that won't drop even one percentage point. This is the Northeast US where temps are moderate not California where AC is a fact of life.
    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      I sorta wonder what "real disaster" the crackpot is referring to. Nuclear winter? A mega volcano?
  • I have a small experimental 180 watt solar setup here at out apartment on the South coast in England. For the first few weeks after installation, I kept a spreadsheet log of the power output throughout the day (morning, noon, afternoon etc). The results were interesting! Other than the time of day (and therefore angle the light hit the panels), it wasn't how sunny it was that affected the power output, it was the air quality. If we had a heavy rain storm, leaving the air fresh and clear, then even on an ove
  • Both wind and solar are driven by weather. There was a reason why our ancestors abandoned such power sources when steam came along. In a time of climate change, when old weather patterns are changing and new problems arising, the reasons, as highlighted in the article, should seem all too obvious.

  • Well, entirely predictable.
  • That solar panel output drops to zero for hours on end each day of the year.

    Perhaps we can light candles and hild them next to the panels in future emergencies.

    • Candles are too old-fashioned. Simply point the headlights of your electric car at the solar panels.

      • Candles are too old-fashioned. Simply point the headlights of your electric car at the solar panels.

        Then you could use them to recharge the car. Brilliant!

    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      The best thing to do is just to start a coal fire in front of the panels and let the light shine on them. You could even use some of the waste heat to sub in for the solar water heater.

  • Assuming civilization doesn't collapse outright or singularity changes everything, hydrogen either straight or converted through methanation is going to be the backup for renewables at net zero. It will make everything a little more expensive, we can afford it.

    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      "we can afford it"

      Speak for yourself. Last I checked people are fscking broke.

    • You do not pay attention. H2 is worse than CO2.
      • Luckily you release as much hydrogen as CO2, it's very light and it doesn't nearly indefinitely accumulate. Also fossil methane emissions at net zero drop to fuck all, so a lot of that interaction goes away.

        Most importantly though, the error bars in the latest paper are just fucking retarded ... they obviously can't model the errors inherent from the inevitably faulty assumptions in the models, so they perturb some of the inputs instead. The error bars are clearly just there for pretend legitimacy, they che

  • Get a little (What you call this a little? OMG pants on fire!) smoke and you're all atwitter(TM). Easterns. I mean, I don't want more stuff to happen to you, but geez, unless something happens to you, it doesn't seem to happen in America.
     
    Forest fires are disasters, moran.

  • Solar power is so clean that even with only 50%, the important people and the rich will not be significantly affected.
  • IIRC Blotting out the sun was what caused the AI's to start using humans as batteries.

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol

Working...