Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[AndyH]

Wet - how does this info change your numbers and/or perception?

Bothering to read what I write? Eh?

Here, I'll try again.

Storage costs. Solar and wind capacity costs.

The higher percentage from solar and wind, the more storage is required.

The higher percentage from solar and wind, the more capacity is idle.

With me so far?

Wet, I've read everything you've written. I've even read it when you've typed the same thing more than three times. And dammit buddy, you're still wrong.

You keep saying that more renewable generation means more storage is required. This was incorrect when you first wrote it and is getting 'more incorrect' with each new study or update. Start with Reddy's post just above this before you finish this.

http://www.rmi.org/winter_2014_esj_ramping_up_renewable_electricity

But the five European countries mentioned earlier have needed no new storage or backup capacity. Indeed, emerging evidence seems consistent with my longstanding hypothesis that a largely or wholly renewable power system may need less storage and backup than utilities have already bought to manage the intermittence of their big coal and nuclear plants. For example, many utility analyses find major windpower installations need only about five percent or less in “balancing reserves,” while big thermal power stations require three times that reserve.

That's what I'm trying to get through to YOU and continually fail.

While I think your heart's in the right place with regards to climate change and CO2, I think your pro-nuclear and anti-renewable stance is keeping you from seeing past your beliefs. I don't know how to fix this. Sorry, I just can't help. Reliable experts must continue to get my vote, Wet.

 

[WetEV]

But the five European countries mentioned earlier have needed no new storage or backup capacity. Indeed, emerging evidence seems consistent with my longstanding hypothesis that a largely or wholly renewable power system may need less storage and backup than utilities have already bought to manage the intermittence of their big coal and nuclear plants. For example, many utility analyses find major windpower installations need only about five percent or less in “balancing reserves,” while big thermal power stations require three times that reserve.

That's what I'm trying to get through to YOU and continually fail.

While I think your heart's in the right place with regards to climate change and CO2, I think your pro-nuclear and anti-renewable stance is keeping you from seeing past your beliefs. I don't know how to fix this. Sorry, I just can't help. Reliable experts must continue to get my vote, Wet.

Note the underlines, and note that only an island or two has enough solar/wind to either need large amounts of storage or maintaining fossil fueled power. The first is very expensive, the second is disastrous. I'll agree that adding solar to California reduces the backup power (aka "peaking power") almost watt per watt up to about 50%, as the peak load is on sunny days for air conditioning.

 

[AndyH]

But the five European countries mentioned earlier have needed no new storage or backup capacity. Indeed, emerging evidence seems consistent with my longstanding hypothesis that a largely or wholly renewable power system may need less storage and backup than utilities have already bought to manage the intermittence of their big coal and nuclear plants. For example, many utility analyses find major windpower installations need only about five percent or less in “balancing reserves,” while big thermal power stations require three times that reserve.

That's what I'm trying to get through to YOU and continually fail.

While I think your heart's in the right place with regards to climate change and CO2, I think your pro-nuclear and anti-renewable stance is keeping you from seeing past your beliefs. I don't know how to fix this. Sorry, I just can't help. Reliable experts must continue to get my vote, Wet.

Note the underlines, and note that only an island or two has enough solar/wind to either need large amounts of storage or maintaining fossil fueled power. The first is very expensive, the second is disastrous. I'll agree that adding solar to California reduces the backup power (aka "peaking power") almost watt per watt up to about 50%, as the peak load is on sunny days for air conditioning.

I agree about the underlines (backup), Wet, but that doesn't negate the parts about "no new storage" - that's an 'or' separating those which means they are two separate requirements.

This isn't personal, Wet. I know it's not warm and fuzzy when I say "you're wrong" - maybe the more accurate phrasing and the phrasing that is less likely to be taken personally (though even this is unlikely to eliminate pushing a button) is more like: "Based on studies and models by multiple experts and organizations active in the field that have reported accurately in the past, it appears that your assertions do not match their reporting. Therefore, without further input and/or cited sources from you, I have to advise you that at least for the time being I have to ignore your point of view in favor of the masses of corroborating data from the remaining sources."

Please - if you can present any data or authoritative sources that support your position then please put them on the table!

 

[WetEV]

You keep saying that more renewable generation means more storage is required. This was incorrect when you first wrote it and is getting 'more incorrect' with each new study or update. Start with Reddy's post just above this before you finish this.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the first additions of renewable (solar and wind) do not require storage, but to get to 100% renewable storage is required. And your sources agree with both parts of this statement.

 

[AndyH]

You keep saying that more renewable generation means more storage is required. This was incorrect when you first wrote it and is getting 'more incorrect' with each new study or update. Start with Reddy's post just above this before you finish this.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the first additions of renewable (solar and wind) do not require storage, but to get to 100% renewable storage is required. And your sources agree with both parts of this statement.

If you think they support that then I guess that's our first problem.

The papers and reports - both low and high level - show quite the opposite. They show that some people USED TO THINK that more renewables = more required storage but now that more areas are achieving higher levels of renewables they're finding that more renewables DOES NOT EQUAL more required storage because of the way different renewable sources compliment each other.

I'm not talking about only wind and PV here - I'm talking the full range of renewables. Just look at the Third Industrial Revolution for a single example - this is wind, solar, biomethane and biomass supply with battery, pumped storage, and hydrogen storage. This not only eliminates renewable curtailment, but provides electricity, replaces natural gas, and completely eliminates fossil fuels from the transportation system. That's electricity, home and industry heat/steam, and transportation.

That also means that peaking gas turbines can stay in play - they'll be fueled by H2 and biomethane rather than fossil natural gas. That's just one piece missing from the puzzle if one thinks that it's "either batteries or natural gas".

We're on a rapidly changing landscape undergoing change at a geometric rate.

 

[AndyH]

Storage: We really don't need it as much as we think

Spanish experts noted that Spain had planned to add simple-cycle turbines on to the grid for balancing high shares of wind power; however, these plans were shelved due to underutilization of already-existing combinedcycle gas plants.12

Until more recently, grid-tied battery storage has been perceived
as expensive and the province mainly of demonstration projects.
However, an increasing number of commercial battery storage
projects today are dispelling that perception, particularly in “niche”
applications that are profitable under current conditions. Some of
these are for centralized grid support and others are much more
decentralized. Storage experts cited many examples of present-day
commercial storage projects using batteries, as well as an increasing
proliferation of distributed batteries at points of customer
end-use.15

Great Debate 3 | Is Energy Storage Necessary for High Levels of Renewables?
As noted in this chapter, the conventional view persists that high shares of renewable energy will require expensive storage technologies that must await further development. Many experts disputed this view, saying that the wide range of other options to manage variability mean that high shares are possible without storage. “We think little or no storage will be needed, at least in the United States,” said one U.S. energy expert, who believed that in most cases, storage can be confined to distributed applications, notably in electric vehicles (see following section on transport).

Many experts believed that storage will indeed be needed before 2030, but for now, “the immediate need is not that great; we can manage fine with pumped hydro and gas, even up to high levels,” said one. Another utility expert noted: “storage has to come down to one-tenth the cost of generation for us to use it in a big way. We really don’t need it as much as we think. It’s cheaper just to
add more generation to compensate for variability than it is to have lots of storage.” And another said, “We don’t need any storage breakthroughs over the next 15–20 years, so we have something of a ‘15-year reprieve’ from

Source: REN21 Renewables: Global Futures Report
http://www.ren21.net/

 

[AndyH]

The power industry is learning the hard way that NOT embracing renewables and distributed generation is MUCH more expensive than trying to maintain their monopolies.

German energy giant RWE has taken a massive loss of €2.8 billion – it’s first loss in 60 years – after admitting it got its strategy wrong, and should have focused more on renewable and distributed energy rather than conventional fossil fuels.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/germany-decline-of-fossil-fuel-generation-is-irreversible-75224

Terium says centralised generation is losing its primacy and the decentralised energy world needs an ‘integrated energy manager’.

“In other words, someone to coordinate the many activities of the individual market players: someone to look after networking the various individual initiatives involved in the transformation of the energy system at a technical and economic level – to bring them all together as a single, integrated unit.”

Terium intends to try to join the “little pieces to form the bigger picture.”

This is EXACTLY what I reported back in December after listening to the author of the Third Industrial Revolution (adopted by Germany and the EU) - that monopolies will dissolve (or companies will leave the market) and those that remain will manage the grid like a 'power internet' rather than be responsible for either ALL the generation or ALL the storage.

Welcome to the future, Wet! More renewables equals lower electricity prices - and fewer monopolistic dinosaurs. Good progress indeed!

 

[AndyH]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/28/energy-markets/when-will-people-unplug

It is critical to note the research was conducted in Victoria. Compared to the rest of Australia, Victoria’s solar resource is poor, the winter climate relatively harsh and grid-supplied electricity prices are some of the lowest in the country. This makes Victoria a “worst-case” scenario for stand-alone power infrastructure and would suggest the viability of stand-alone power will be more cost-effective, more quickly, in most other energy market states and regions.

Research released in January by the energy services company Energy for the People and the not-for-profit Alternative Technology Association found that regional towns and new housing estates in Victoria could function viably without connecting to centralised electricity and, in some scenarios, centralised gas grids by 2020.

Entitled What Happens When We Un-Plug: Exploring the Consumer and Market Implications of Viable Off-Grid Energy Supply, the research sits with a growing body of evidence, validating the hypothesis that viable stand-alone energy supply will be with us before 2020, including The Economics of Grid Defection by the Rocky Mountain Institute, research by Morgan Stanley into off-grid tipping points and, most recently, the views of the Independent Market Operator in Western Australia.

 

[WetEV]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/28/energy-markets/when-will-people-unplug

Not connected to the grid, but has this:

Generator Back-up
Petrol generators were chosen for the individual home scenarios as these typically involve
quieter units, with less particulate emissions. As generator use is only occasional, petrol
gensets are also more cost-effective than diesel for this type of application.

I'll leave it the interested to find the percentage of solar power vs generator fueled power, and convert it into days of runtime per year. 92% solar, 8% generator for example, would be 29 days per year of generator running. Ever have a power outage, and listen to all the generators run?

While biofuel is mentioned as a possibility, unless there are many fewer people, or we eat less, or there is a lot more cropland someplace I've never heard about, there is not and will not be enough biofuels to replace any large fraction of current fossil fuels.

This is also for household usage only. Household heat and industrial uses not included.

 

[dhanson865]

The first kWh of renewable power, or even the first 50% of the power load is not the problem. It is the cost of the last kWh, or the last 10%. The tail gets very expensive.

OK so lets get with the program and build that first 50% ASAP.

When that task is done then we can argue about how to do the next step.

How about this mix of renewables.
15% Solar PV
15% Wind
15% Geothermal
15% Hydroelectric

Yes I know that's 60% instead of 50% but what the.......

In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:

Coal 37%
Natural Gas 30%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 5%
Biomass 1.42%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.11%
Wind 3.46%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

Hydro will be very hard to increase so make your goal for it 10% and don't be surprised if it drops to 5% someday.

Geothermal, I don't know if there are limits to growth on this one but sure lets aim for 15% until we are sure it will or won't make it.

Solar PV, I darn sure know this can ramp up and I'm anxious to see it ramp ASAP. Make this one whatever is left after the other 3.

Wind, I know this can ramp but I consider it less desirable due to worker deaths, reliability, variability but it's proven tech and I'm for ramping it up for industrial power generation. Go ahead and shoot for 15% on it as well but I'd rather see many times more Solar PV than wind.

So dream of this mix of renewables.
15% Solar PV
15% Wind
15% Geothermal
10% Hydroelectric

But expect something more like this mix by the time we get to 50% renewables.
30% Solar PV
10% Wind
5% Geothermal
5% Hydroelectric

Fun thing is if you have a 20 year old windmill you are talking about worn out parts that need replacing, lubricating, tightening, patching, sealing.

If you have a 20 year old solar panel it's likely to be producing power just fine and can be sold or given away to someone less fortunate so that you can install higher efficiency panels.

The market for used solar PV will have plenty of people installing used panels on their roofs some day but I don't see the same style market for used windmills. If I'm right about that you'll eventually get to the point where 100% of the houses have panels on the roof but the difference will be how many times the panels have been resold (some houses with new panels, some with 2nd hand panels, some with 3rd hand panels, some with mixtures of new and old, some with junkyard Frankenstein mishmashes.). How many decades down the road it will take until every house has PV I can't imagine.

 

[AndyH]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/3/28/energy-markets/when-will-people-unplug

Not connected to the grid, but has this:

Generator Back-up
Petrol generators were chosen for the individual home scenarios as these typically involve
quieter units, with less particulate emissions. As generator use is only occasional, petrol
gensets are also more cost-effective than diesel for this type of application.

I'll leave it the interested to find the percentage of solar power vs generator fueled power, and convert it into days of runtime per year. 92% solar, 8% generator for example, would be 29 days per year of generator running. Ever have a power outage, and listen to all the generators run?

While biofuel is mentioned as a possibility, unless there are many fewer people, or we eat less, or there is a lot more cropland someplace I've never heard about, there is not and will not be enough biofuels to replace any large fraction of current fossil fuels.

This is also for household usage only. Household heat and industrial uses not included.

Of course they have generators, Wet - the article is about disconnecting from the grid, not about efficiently using energy. This is a single example that shows the grid is increasingly optional for a larger percentage of the developed world. But this is not the 'end of the journey' - it's not even state of the art.

I know that in the temperate zone of this planet, within which the vast majority of humans live, there is absolutely no reason why homes need generators. This is being done today.

If the Australian article was based on building to the passive house standard rather than the typical US/Aus stick-built building, energy demand would be cut to about 10% - and that not only significantly reduces the cost of the renewable system but allows enough PV/thermal and battery to provide 100% of the building's energy 24/7/365. Yes, that's also being done today.

District heating/hot water can be provided by biomass and/or biogas - that's being done today.
The generator can be replaced by a CHP unit or a hydrogen fuel cell to provide electricity, heat, and hot water. That's being done today as well.

And yes - that's hot water and heating and electricity and in the case of an EV can be transportation as well. On an industrial scale, wind, solar, biofuels, hydro can all provide industrial-sized power and heat as well.

 

[AndyH]

Label this "Economics of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power, Simplified"


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2Rx8VRq48[/youtube]


Too bad it's not simple. Too bad, also, that it wasn't included in the OP's 'economic' calculations.

 

[AndyH]

Economics of Renewable Power - accurate.



Example of a failure:



Source: 15 Feb 2014 Presentation to the AAAS
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html

 

[jhm614]

Economics of Renewable Power - accurate.

I am a proponent of renewable energy but I wonder what externalities are included with conventional power price? Should similar factors be included in the cost of renewables?

 

[jhm614]

Economics of Renewable Power - accurate.

Duplicate post.

 

[jhm614]

Economics of Renewable Power - accurate.

Yet another duplicate post - darn mobile devices! (or perhaps, darn shaky users!)

 

[AndyH]

Economics of Renewable Power - accurate.
View attachment 1

I am a proponent of renewable energy but I wonder what externalities are included with conventional power price? Should similar factors be included in the cost of renewables?

Externalities in the accounting are listed in the presentation and in Jacobson's papers - including table 2 (page 8) from this: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf The numbers listed are for pollution and climate change effects. The source seems to track back to here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794 These data are not all-inclusive. I haven't read the paper but There's a podcast included at the link with comments from the authors.

These are really the costs associated with emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide [and] particulate matter from electric power generation and also the manufacture and use of motor vehicles. It's not a comprehensive number that really captures all of the damages or hidden costs associated with energy production, distribution, and use, it's really only a part of it.

In the 50-plans pages on http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#tx they're shown as avoided deaths and health care costs. The future price of energy doesn't include the climate change-related costs of fossil fuel use by default. Here's the summary for Texas:



This is only one plan - Jacobson's 100% generation from wind, water, and sun program. Rocky Mountain Institute's 'Reinventing Fire' plan moves us to 25% of our current natural gas volume while eliminating nuclear, oil, and coal. It does this by business for profit, while supporting a ~150% larger economy and while saving billions over business as usual. Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution" program - being executed by Germany, the EU, the UN for developing countries, China, and the city of San Antonio - is wind, solar, and hydrogen; BEV and FCEV vehicles; local/micro-grids; and peer to peer power sharing. http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/masterPlan.cfm

We appear to have many options with different combinations of storage, but one thing's consistent for all three - quitting fossil fuels and nuclear energy reduces the cost and price of energy.

 

[WetEV]

Some interesting thoughts from Dr Hanson.

http://www.cleanbiz.asia/blogs/thoughts-ningbo-china-and-renewables-only-lobby#.U23dnlSSx3B" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Some interesting thoughts from Dr Hanson.

http://www.cleanbiz.asia/blogs/thoughts-ningbo-china-and-renewables-only-lobby#.U23dnlSSx3B" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately, Wet, they're 'interesting thoughts' from a blog post with no supporting references. I'd be interested in why you think the thoughts are 'interesting' and what parts of the piece you might find more valuable and which you might think are less useful.

edit... Also, Wet - I've spent the past week searching for any energy analysis conducted by either Hanson or his immediate team and have not yet found any. Can you cite any sources that show he's actually run any numbers to support his opinions? Thanks in advance.

 

[AndyH]

Spanish Island - 'first' in the world powered solely by wind and water - no PV, no batteries. Next step: Replacing all vehicles on the island with Nissan Leaf.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/en...island-first-to-be-powered-only-by-wind-water

From now on, El Hierro will be known for something else as well. It is the first island on Earth to be fully powered by renewable energy. A combination of wind turbines and hydroelectric energy mean that the island can power itself without oil, coal or any other nonrenewable energy source. The system will be officially begin operation at the end of June.

Excess power from the five wind turbines will be used to pump water to a reservoir in the crater of a nonactive volcano. When winds are calm, this water will be released, flowing downhill through hydroelectric turbines. This way, excess wind power can be saved without the need for batteries.

Though the systems have already been heavily tested, the island does have an emergency reserve of fuel to protect against unforeseen problems. Even so, Hierro continues to plan for more sustainable moves in the near future. The island's authorities have entered into an agreement with Nissan to replace all of El Hierro's vehicles with electric cars in the next six years.

It's the first off-grid island but apparently not the first on-grid island to transition:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/29/introducing-samso-100-wind-powered-island/

On a small island off the coast of Denmark, a group of potato farmers have turned into power brokers, owning the wind turbines that have made their island a net energy producer. In less than ten years, Samsø went from producing 11 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, one of the highest carbon emissions per capita in Europe, to just 4.4 tonnes (the U.S. is at 17.6), and has proven that running on 100 percent renewable electricity is possible.

Clearly there's already a business case that shows 100% renewable energy production is less expensive over time than continuing down a 19th century path. But surely renewables can't power an entire industrialized 'first-world' country, right? Bzzzt - thanks for playing. The Solutions Project breaks it out state by state showing how the entire US can be powered by wind, sun, water and efficiency (including electric transportation) for profit.
http://thesolutionsproject.org/

Elon Musk has shown us that a 21st century spacecraft doesn't have to maintain the 20th century paradigm - these islands - and the three leading plans (The Solutions Project, Reinventing Fire, and the Third Industrial Revolution) show us that we can make a better choice for energy as well.