Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[RegGuheert]

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

Thanks, Andy! That's a clever design! I'm glad to see this type of innovation occurring where it can!

But according to the 2014 version of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, as a whole, we have not increased our fraction of carbon-free energy consumption in the past 15 years. It seems to be parked at 13%:

I'm not saying it cannot be done, but rather that it is not being done. With all the growth in renewables during the past 15 years, it seems that about 6X as much fossil-fuel production capacity has been put in place during the same period.

 

[AndyH]

I suspect these are the real "economics of renewable power, simplified."

What's more, Germany's two largest coal-burning utilities have lost 56 percent of their value over the past four years, and the losses have continued into the first half of 2014. And it's not just Germany. Last year, the top 20 utilities throughout Europe reported losing half of their value since 2008. According to the Swiss bank UBS, nine out of 10 European coal and gas plants are now losing money.

In the United States, where up to 49 percent of the new generating capacity came from renewables in 2012, 166 coal-fired electricity-generating plants have either closed or have announced they are closing in the past four and a half years. An additional 183 proposed new coal plants have been canceled since 2005.

To be sure, some of these closings have been due to the substitution of gas for coal, but the transition under way in both the American and global energy markets is far more significant than one fossil fuel replacing another. We are witnessing the beginning of a massive shift to a new energy-distribution model – from the "central station" utility-grid model that goes back to the 1880s to a "widely distributed" model with rooftop solar cells, on-site and grid battery storage, and microgrids.

The principal trade group representing U.S. electric utilities, the Edison Electric Institute, has identified distributed generation as the "largest near-term threat to the utility model." Last May, Barclays downgraded the entirety of the U.S. electric sector, warning that "a confluence of declining cost trends in distributed solar­photovoltaic-power generation and residential­scale power storage is likely to disrupt the status quo" and make utility investments less attractive.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-turning-point-new-hope-for-the-climate-20140618

 

[TimLee]

Results in Germany last year don't look too good :shock:

In 1990, Germany's bown coal-fired power stations produced almost 171 billion kilowatt hours of power. At the time, many old eastern German plants were still in operation.

It was a situation that the German government wanted to change, with the aim being that of radically reducing the output of the CO2-polluting lignite plants, but that's not happening. In 2013, it rose to 162 billion kilowatt hours, the highest level since reunification in 1990, according to preliminary figures from AGEB, a collection of industry associations and research institutes.

Electricity output from brown coal plants rose 0.8 percent in 2013, said Jochen Diekmann of the German Institute for Economic Research. As a result, Germany's CO2 output is expected to have risen in 2013, even as power from renewable sources has reached 25 percent of the energy mix.

Part of the reason, said Diekmann, is the low price of CO2 emissions permits in EU trading scheme. Another reason is that new brown coal plants, with a capacity of 2,743 megawatts, came on line in 2012, far exceeding the 1,321 megawatts from old plants shut down that year.

The opposition Green Party called on the government to stop the trend. "Those serious about protecting the climate must ensure that less and less power is generated from brown coal," said Green Party politician Bärbel Höhn. CO2 emissions needed to be priced at a level that makes the more climate-friendly gas-fired power stations economical, she said. "Brown coal power stations, after nuclear plants, are the main source of profit for RWE and Co.," said Höhn, referring to Germany's major utilities. "So they don't even switch off the really old power stations."
Power output from anthracite coal also rose, by eight billion kilowatt hours to over 124 billion, while output from gas-fired plants fell by 10 billion to 66 billion. That means that coal plants are making up for the bulk of the energy production lost due to the 2011 shutdown of eight nuclear plants, while gas plants, which emit less CO2 but are more expensive to run, are barely profitable at present.

Energy Paradox

The increase in coal-generated power also led to a new record in German electricity exports to around 33 billion kilowatt hours. "In 2013 Germany exported more power than it imported on eight out of 10 days. Most of it was generated by from brown coal and anthracite power stations," said Patrick Graichen, a power market analyst at Berlin-based think tank Agora Energiewende. "They are crowding out gas plants not just in Germany but also abroad -- especially in the Netherlands."

Graichen said it was a paradox of Germany's "Energiewende," the energy revolution aimed at weaning the country off fossil fuel by 2050, that CO2 emissions were now rising despite the rapid expansion of solar and wind power. In 2014, the surcharge on electricity bills will provide some €23.5 billion of subsidies for renewable energies. A four-person household will pay a surcharge of almost €220 this year.

That, said Graichen, is due to the low price of CO2 permits. "The European market for emissions certificates must urgently be repaired to change that," he said. The volume of emissions certificates must be reduced in order to boost the price of CO2.

Gerald Neubauer of Greenpeace said Energy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, of the center-left Social Democrats, must stop "the shocking coal boom." No other country produces more brown coal than Germany, he added. "The coal boom now endangers Germany's credibility on climate protection and the energy revolution," said Neubauer. The Social Democrats need to adopt a more critical stance on this issue, he added.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/g...tedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[AndyH]

Results in Germany last year don't look too good :shock:

In 1990, Germany's bown coal-fired power stations produced almost 171 billion kilowatt hours of power. At the time, many old eastern German plants were still in operation.

Yup - that was expected. Remember that Germany cut something like 27% off their CO2 emissions prior to 2013. It appears that renewables took a big bite out of gas generation in 2013 and is expected to take a bit out of coal this year.

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

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...

Conventional power stations are being driven out by solar PV, particularly during peak load, and the huge expansion of renewables has pushed the market price of electricity to less than €37 per megawatt-hour, where it is virtually impossible to operate conventional power stations economically.

The question is what to do now. Terium says it is not all bad news, because much of the new plant that has been installed is highly flexible; designed to fit in and around a renewables-dominated grid. For instance, he said, the entire 10,000MW capacity of power stations in the Rhenish region can be reduced and increased again by about 5,000 megawatts within 30 minutes. (Interestingly, RWE cut is Co2 emissions from generation by 9% in the last year).

http://www.renewablesinternational....er-consumption-to-drop-in-2014/150/537/75788/

The main caveat to this list is that coal power production may nonetheless remain stable or even rise slightly despite the lower demand for it in Germany because Germany’s neighbors are increasingly buying inexpensive coal power from Germany (a situation I described here). In other words, carbon emissions from the German power sector might increase because of consumption in the Netherlands, France, etc.

More importantly, a minor dip in carbon emissions in a particular year is less crucial than the overall trend. Don’t expect carbon emissions from the German power sector to go down dramatically until Germany starts a phaseout of coal power, which Industry Minister Gabriel says cannot happen at the same time as the nuclear phaseout – which ends in 2022.

 

[AndyH]

Economics of Renewable Power, Simplified.

Texas utility Austin Energy is going to be paying 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar power, and it could mean lower customer rates.

City-owned Austin Energy is about to sign a 25-year PPA with Sun Edison for 150 megawatts of solar power at "just below" 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. The power will come from two West Texas solar facilities, according to reports in the Austin American-Statesman. According to reports, around 30 proposals were at prices near SunEdison’s. Austin Energy has suggested that the PV deal will slightly lower rates for customers.

Austin Energy's net sub-five cent price does not include any state PTC, according to Monty Humble of energy development firm Brightman Energy LLC.

Kadison notes, "This is below the all-in cost of natural gas generation, even with low fuel prices and before factoring in commodity volatility and cost overruns."

The 5-cent price falls below Austin Energy's estimates for natural gas at 7 cents, coal at 10 cents and nuclear at 13 cents.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ergy-Buys-PV-From-SunEdison-at-5-Cents-Per-Ki

 

[RegGuheert]

Economics of Renewable Power, Simplified.

Texas utility Austin Energy is going to be paying 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar power, and it could mean lower customer rates.

City-owned Austin Energy is about to sign a 25-year PPA with Sun Edison for 150 megawatts of solar power at "just below" 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. The power will come from two West Texas solar facilities, according to reports in the Austin American-Statesman. According to reports, around 30 proposals were at prices near SunEdison’s. Austin Energy has suggested that the PV deal will slightly lower rates for customers.

No one is arguing that installing PV is expensive when there is very little renewable energy in the mix. In fact, the information you posted agrees exactly with what WetEV put forth in the thread opener:

0% renewable Power rate will be $0.090 per kWh
10% renewable costs $0.045 per kWh Power rate will be $0.086 per kWh

Namely, installing the first 10% of renewable energy generation should cost less than $0.05/kWh and will lower the overall cost of generation slightly. I don't think anyone here has ever argued that installing PV for the first bit of generation is a bad idea. Rather, the point of this thread is that the costs will go up as your percent of total generation increases. This effect is very significant as you approach 100% generation.

Your example of an island using wind and pumped storage to try to generate 100% of their electricity is a great example of what can be done in some isolated cases. The question is if and how high levels of renewables can be achieved elsewhere at a reasonable cost. Yes, you can do it with hydrogen, but the present (and near future) costs will be way beyond what the economy can withstand, regardless of what your prophets of hydrogen tell you.

 

[AndyH]

No one is arguing that installing PV is expensive when there is very little renewable energy in the mix. In fact, the information you posted agrees exactly with what WetEV put forth in the thread opener:

0% renewable Power rate will be $0.090 per kWh
10% renewable costs $0.045 per kWh Power rate will be $0.086 per kWh

Namely, installing the first 10% of renewable energy generation should cost less than $0.05/kWh and will lower the overall cost of generation slightly. I don't think anyone here has ever argued that installing PV for the first bit of generation is a bad idea. Rather, the point of this thread is that the costs will go up as your percent of total generation increases. This effect is very significant as you approach 100% generation.

Your example of an island using wind and pumped storage to try to generate 100% of their electricity is a great example of what can be done in some isolated cases. The question is if and how high levels of renewables can be achieved elsewhere at a reasonable cost. Yes, you can do it with hydrogen, but the present (and near future) costs will be way beyond what the economy can withstand, regardless of what your prophets of hydrogen tell you.

The problem, Reg, is that there are areas of the world with much more than 10% of electricity from renewables now, and there are a total of three peer-reviewed proposals that take us to ~90% renewables in one instance and 100% in the other two - and in both proposals and real world the price AND costs are lower than business as usual. So far I cannot find a single paper, study, proposal, or real-world example that fits Wet's thesis.

Review the full Third Industrial Revolution plan, Reinventing Fire, and The Solutions Project -- not a single one of these plans, put forward by experts in the field, agrees with you or Wet. I'll go with the experts on this.

 

[RegGuheert]

The problem, Reg, is that there are areas of the world with much more than 10% of electricity from renewables now, and there are a total of three peer-reviewed proposals that take us to ~90% renewables in one instance and 100% in the other two - and in both proposals and real world the price AND costs are lower than business as usual.

And the Austin post I responded is not either of those.

I'm still interested in the island case. Do you have anything that gives the cost/kWh for the full-up system? It has to be more than the wind alone due to the addition of the pumped hydro, but I don't know what it comes out to. Please include repair costs, if they are known or estimated.

 

[AndyH]

The problem, Reg, is that there are areas of the world with much more than 10% of electricity from renewables now, and there are a total of three peer-reviewed proposals that take us to ~90% renewables in one instance and 100% in the other two - and in both proposals and real world the price AND costs are lower than business as usual.

And the Austin post I responded is not either of those.

Of course. But it does show the cost of alternatives in that specific market on an apples to apples basis. Austin's working towards a modified TIR-type transition. If we believe the OP's math, adding renewables should increase prices but the opposite's happening.

I'm still interested in the island case. Do you have anything that gives the cost/kWh for the full-up system? It has to be more than the wind alone due to the addition of the pumped hydro, but I don't know what it comes out to. Please include repair costs, if they are known or estimated.

You'll have to look for those on your own as I'm only interested in the island example as far as a 'milepost' towards energy sanity. The details you seek are fully itemized in Reinventing Fire, TIR, and Solutions, however. I recommend starting with Reinventing Fire. In each case, the cost to convert the system from today to 100% renewables is lower than business as usual and the resulting cost of electricity is also lower. Those two factoids together blow the premise of this thread out of the water. Add a price for carbon and/or health/environment benefits and there's no comparison.

 

[RegGuheert]

If we believe the OP's math, adding renewables should increase prices but the opposite's happening.

You clearly did not understand the message provided by the OP including the small bit which I quoted. His point is that renewables bring down the total cost of electricity up to 20% and then raise it very slightly as you go to 30% (although still lower than it had been originally), with it continually increasing as you approach 100% renewables, capping out at about 160% of original cost with 100% renewables.

You'll have to look for those on your own as I'm only interested in the island example as far as a 'milepost' towards energy sanity.

The island example is interesting as it uses well-established storage technology instead of emerging technologies. It should provide best-case cost information for 100% renewable implementations. But while this cost is almost-certainly cheaper than the fossil-fuel-based alternatives, we need to keep in mind that islands often must import the fossil fuels which they burn at very high cost. For instance, electricity costs the consumer about $0.45/kWh in Hawaii. That may mean the cost to the utility may be as high as $0.30/kWh for generation. So perhaps the island in question is able to install a fully-renewable electricity system for $0.20/kWh and still come out way ahead. And at the same time that would confirm exactly what WetEV is telling us in the OP: It costs a lot more to get to 100% than those initial 30%.

The details you seek are fully itemized in Reinventing Fire, TIR, and Solutions, however.

Actually, they are not. Those documents are full of qualitative arguments and unsubstantiated assumptions which are used to try to make their case.

It's clear that as Germany approaches the 30% mark, costs are escalating rapidly and I think they are endangering the entire movement due to the backlash that may be triggered in the German population. Even in CA we see utilities installing solar thermal generation in the desert at over $0.25/kWh and this is for installations within the first 10% of production. (As you see in Texas, large PV installations in CA are much more reasonably-priced.)

I recommend starting with Reinventing Fire. In each case, the cost to convert the system from today to 100% renewables is lower than business as usual and the resulting cost of electricity is also lower. Those two factoids together blow the premise of this thread out of the water.

Lot's of qualitative discussion and hand-waving are simply low-quality propaganda in my book. These would be engineering projects and that means the devil is in the details. And the details will inevitably turn this equation against the renewable solutions in terms of direct costs. As your post from Austin confirms: WetEV's numbers for the first 10% are dead-on in the real world. But I suspect his numbers for the 100% case are wildly optimistic given the real-world numbers we see being spent for much-less-far-reaching solutions.

Add a price for carbon and/or health/environment benefits and there's no comparison.

I think we can all agree with this aspect of the issue.

 

[GRA]

Just a data point. As of 4:35 P.M., ISO was reporting 8,687 MW of Renewables, of which Solar was 3,890, Wind 3,053 MW. That's a bit over 25% of the total demand. Check it out!

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#Renewables" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

If we believe the OP's math, adding renewables should increase prices but the opposite's happening.

You clearly did not understand the message provided by the OP including the small bit which I quoted. His point is that renewables bring down the total cost of electricity up to 20% and then raise it very slightly as you go to 30% (although still lower than it had been originally), with it continually increasing as you approach 100% renewables, capping out at about 160% of original cost with 100% renewables.

Yeah, I really DO understand what Wet's been saying. And based on both real-world info and three independent plans that are being deployed in various parts of this world as we toss quotes at each other, the 160% number is pure fantasy.

The details you seek are fully itemized in Reinventing Fire, TIR, and Solutions, however.

Actually, they are not. Those documents are full of qualitative arguments and unsubstantiated assumptions which are used to try to make their case.

You're welcome to your beliefs but again, I'll defer to the energy experts, not some mystery folks on a fairly obscure EV forum.

It's clear that as Germany approaches the 30% mark, costs are escalating rapidly and I think they are endangering the entire movement due to the backlash that may be triggered in the German population.

If that's what you think then I strongly recommend you leave here and study both the bottom-up Energiewende and the top-down TIR being implemented in Germany. BS about escalating prices is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry and their politicians. In reality, the Energiewende is a bottom-up transition to 100% renewables owned and operated by the people. They are buying their own wind, installing their own PV and solar-thermal, digesting their own biomethane, and buying chunks of the electric grid if the local power provider gives them trouble about pushing their 100% energy surplus back onto the grid. When they pay their electric bill they are paying into their retirement accounts as those accounts own the infrastructure. The money made selling excess energy is theirs as well. And again - any price increases in the renewable portions of their generation are at a much lower rate than the increases in fossil fuel and nuke generation. There's no price escalation and there will be no backlash because the German people are DEMANDING this transition. They were marching in the streets to make it happen, not to keep it from happening.

I recommend starting with Reinventing Fire. In each case, the cost to convert the system from today to 100% renewables is lower than business as usual and the resulting cost of electricity is also lower. Those two factoids together blow the premise of this thread out of the water.

Lot's of qualitative discussion and hand-waving are simply low-quality propaganda in my book. These would be engineering projects and that means the devil is in the details. And the details will inevitably turn this equation against the renewable solutions in terms of direct costs. As your post from Austin confirms: WetEV's numbers for the first 10% are dead-on in the real world. But I suspect his numbers for the 100% case are wildly optimistic given the real-world numbers we see being spent for much-less-far-reaching solutions.

Clearly you have studied neither the TIR nor the Reinventing Fire plan or took the time to understand their authors. They are both partnerships with industry using current tech for profit and not the type of left-brained slide-rule exercises that can be seen at the head of this thread. That's why they're being implemented around the world. As to your direct costs comment, I could almost agree with you if we were starting today with zero installed power generation and no power grid. Since much of the required infrastructure are already sunk costs, and since we have to dump many billions of Real Green American Dollars (tm) into grid and generation modernization between now and 2030, we can either fix what we have installed or save money by decommissioning all the coal and nukes and many gas plants while we keep planting wind, PV, and CSP.

 

[flyonpa]

1st I want to say I not gone thru all the links...

Renewable Power. In a "island" environment (No grid to fall back on).

Juneau Alaska in 2008 an avalanche took out the transmission line from it Hydro (Renewable power) plant.

Normal Hydro power cost about 4-5cents/Kwh Normal Rates in Juneau are 9-11c

Juneau has 100% power backup from diesel generators (Normally ~85% of there power comes from that one Hydro site).

When they had to go with out the Renewable power the rates jumped up to 53c / Kwh Mostly to pay for the fuel.

Since they are so dependent on the Hydro they do not have any cheaper base load power. Coal/LNG might be options, Alaska Has lots of coal, and they, until a few years ago use to Export LNG .

The "baseload" Diesel stand-by almost doubles there normal bill, from 4-5c (Hydro only) to 9-11c (Hydro / Diesel (Backup/peaker power) ,

 

[GRA]

If we believe the OP's math, adding renewables should increase prices but the opposite's happening.

You clearly did not understand the message provided by the OP including the small bit which I quoted. His point is that renewables bring down the total cost of electricity up to 20% and then raise it very slightly as you go to 30% (although still lower than it had been originally), with it continually increasing as you approach 100% renewables, capping out at about 160% of original cost with 100% renewables.

Yeah, I really DO understand what Wet's been saying. And based on both real-world info and three independent plans that are being deployed in various parts of this world as we toss quotes at each other, the 160% number is pure fantasy.

The details you seek are fully itemized in Reinventing Fire, TIR, and Solutions, however.

Actually, they are not. Those documents are full of qualitative arguments and unsubstantiated assumptions which are used to try to make their case.

You're welcome to your beliefs but again, I'll defer to the energy experts, not some mystery folks on a fairly obscure EV forum.

It's clear that as Germany approaches the 30% mark, costs are escalating rapidly and I think they are endangering the entire movement due to the backlash that may be triggered in the German population.

If that's what you think then I strongly recommend you leave here and study both the bottom-up Energiewende and the top-down TIR being implemented in Germany. BS about escalating prices is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry and their politicians. In reality, the Energiewende is a bottom-up transition to 100% renewables owned and operated by the people. They are buying their own wind, installing their own PV and solar-thermal, digesting their own biomethane, and buying chunks of the electric grid if the local power provider gives them trouble about pushing their 100% energy surplus back onto the grid. When they pay their electric bill they are paying into their retirement accounts as those accounts own the infrastructure. The money made selling excess energy is theirs as well. And again - any price increases in the renewable portions of their generation are at a much lower rate than the increases in fossil fuel and nuke generation. There's no price escalation and there will be no backlash because the German people are DEMANDING this transition. They were marching in the streets to make it happen, not to keep it from happening.

I recommend starting with Reinventing Fire. In each case, the cost to convert the system from today to 100% renewables is lower than business as usual and the resulting cost of electricity is also lower. Those two factoids together blow the premise of this thread out of the water.

Lot's of qualitative discussion and hand-waving are simply low-quality propaganda in my book. These would be engineering projects and that means the devil is in the details. And the details will inevitably turn this equation against the renewable solutions in terms of direct costs. As your post from Austin confirms: WetEV's numbers for the first 10% are dead-on in the real world. But I suspect his numbers for the 100% case are wildly optimistic given the real-world numbers we see being spent for much-less-far-reaching solutions.

Clearly you have studied neither the TIR nor the Reinventing Fire plan or took the time to understand their authors. They are both partnerships with industry using current tech for profit and not the type of left-brained slide-rule exercises that can be seen at the head of this thread. That's why they're being implemented around the world. As to your direct costs comment, I could almost agree with you if we were starting today with zero installed power generation and no power grid. Since much of the required infrastructure are already sunk costs, and since we have to dump many billions of Real Green American Dollars (tm) into grid and generation modernization between now and 2030, we can either fix what we have installed or save money by decommissioning all the coal and nukes and many gas plants while we keep planting wind, PV, and CSP.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/germany-may-install-least-solar-power-capacity-since-2008.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andy, just because a previous government was more supportive of AE doesn't mean they will always be so. Governments can always alter course, given popular discontent, and after the election it was Merkel who was agreeing that the PV and Wind subsidies needed to be cut.

I've posted in the Incentives thread the effect of subsidies on the TCO of BEVs and PHEVs. That study shows that Denmark and Germany had the highest average price for grid electricity in the EU in 2013.

 

[AndyH]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/germany-may-install-least-solar-power-capacity-since-2008.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andy, just because a previous government was more supportive of AE doesn't mean they will always be so. Governments can always alter course, given popular discontent, and after the election it was Merkel who was agreeing that the PV and Wind subsidies needed to be cut.

I've posted in the Incentives thread the effect of subsidies on the TCO of BEVs and PHEVs. That study shows that Denmark and Germany had the highest average price for grid electricity in the EU in 2013.

Yes Guy, things can change. But the really, really important part of Germany's process is that if the government stops it's top-down TIR progress, the bottom-up Energiewende will continue. I've lived there, man, and you do not want to stand in the way of German protesters - especially protesters that are making their own electricity and heat - unless one has very good insurance.

Of course the prices are high - but they didn't rise because of the transition - they rose more slowly because of the energy transition. And again and again and again - a significant portion of many energy payments goes directly into the citizen's retirement accounts - They Are Paying Themselves - and that changes everything! (Besides - these areas have some of the most efficient buildings on the planet and their actual electric bills are low in spite of the price.)***

Yes - they've cut subsidies. We've talked about that before (if not here, in other threads) because the TIR roll-out didn't happen evenly - they have too much wind and solar right now and not enough storage or BEVs or FCEVs. That's why they're slowing pillar 1 in order to catch-up with the other legs of the five-legged stool. Their first wind to H2 plant began operating within the past couple of months and there are at least 17 more under construction.

Vision is more important than sight here....or...this is a marathon, not a sprint.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=330885
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790

We understood this in Europe. We had the five pillars, but we moved pillar 1 quickly, and not the other four. So we put in a huge amount of green electricity because we have feed-in tariffs. That is, you're paid premium for sending your green electricity back to the grid beyond what the price of the market is to encourage early adoption. So we have millions of people putting in a little green electricity. Pillar 1! We didn't move pillar 4 quick enough - the energy internet. So we got millions of little players trying to get green electricity into a grid that's 60 years old, servo-mechanical, centralized, leaks 20% of its electricity and it's overwhelmed by all these little players - it can't handle it. Then Pillar 1 has been so successful we have so much green electricity because of the feed-in tariffs - we didn't move Pillar 3 storage fast enough. We've got regions that are 30, 40, 50, and 60% green electricity and we are losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts because we're not storing the energy. So the electricity is at night because of the wind - we don't need it at night! Sometimes at high-noon there's so much solar going into the grid that we have negative price - meaning the utility pays you to not put the energy on. Then at midnight it goes back up again because we haven't put in Pillar 3 storage. And now our car companies are petrified because they spent billions on electric and fuel cell vehicles, they're sending them to market but if they don't have an infrastructure to plug them into, it's all lost. So we've got to build this out as an infrastructure revolution. And when we do, this third industrial revolution, this is power to the people - I mean this literally and figuratively.

***
http://vimeo.com/album/2464396
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/22/welcome-energiewende-movie/

In my opinion, the movie does a great job at conveying the message that the German Energiewende story is more complex than what we are often made to believe in the international and even the German mainstream press.

http://energytransition.de/2012/10/key-findings/

 

[WetEV]

The problem, Reg, is that there are areas of the world with much more than 10% of electricity from renewables now, and there are a total of three peer-reviewed proposals that take us to ~90% renewables in one instance and 100% in the other two - and in both proposals and real world the price AND costs are lower than business as usual. So far I cannot find a single paper, study, proposal, or real-world example that fits Wet's thesis.

Yes, hydro at 100% works just fine. Available 365/24 at the minimum stream flow, or higher with water storage, which can be fairly cheap. Geothermal also.

Wind isn't available 365/24. Solar isn't available 365/24.

No studies support this, other than the one's you quote as successes, of course. :lol: :roll:

they have too much wind and solar right now and not enough storage...We've got regions that are 30, 40, 50, and 60% green electricity and we are losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts because we're not storing the energy. So the electricity is at night because of the wind - we don't need it at night! Sometimes at high-noon there's so much solar going into the grid that we have negative price - meaning the utility pays you to not put the energy on.

Nice to see confirmation.

Again, storage isn't free, and isn't lossless. A small amount of excess it probably cheaper to let it go to waste than to store it. To get to 80% wind and solar, you need a lot of storage. The more you need to store, and the longer you need to store it, the higher the cost. While the first kWh from solar and wind might be cheaper than the peaking power it replaces, the last kWh is not.

 

[AndyH]

The problem, Reg, is that there are areas of the world with much more than 10% of electricity from renewables now, and there are a total of three peer-reviewed proposals that take us to ~90% renewables in one instance and 100% in the other two - and in both proposals and real world the price AND costs are lower than business as usual. So far I cannot find a single paper, study, proposal, or real-world example that fits Wet's thesis.

Yes, hydro at 100% works just fine. Available 365/24 at the minimum stream flow, or higher with water storage, which can be fairly cheap. Geothermal also.

Wind isn't available 365/24. Solar isn't available 365/24.

No studies support this, other than the one's you quote as successes, of course. :lol: :roll:

Of course Wet - as long as some ignore what's being done they can remain in their coma... :roll:

they have too much wind and solar right now and not enough storage...We've got regions that are 30, 40, 50, and 60% green electricity and we are losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts because we're not storing the energy. So the electricity is at night because of the wind - we don't need it at night! Sometimes at high-noon there's so much solar going into the grid that we have negative price - meaning the utility pays you to not put the energy on.

Nice to see confirmation.

It's easy to cherry pick, isn't it? Germany's implementing TIR - which is much, much more than 'just' electricity - it's electricity, building heat, hot water, industrial heat, and completely electrified transportation. Jacobson has clearly shown that NO storage is "REQUIRED" for a fully-renewable grid in the USA. But that's not what Germany's doing - in their case with their project storage IS a required part of the process because the storage matter (H2) is used not just for grid storage but for thermal heat and transportation.

Again, storage isn't free, and isn't lossless. A small amount of excess it probably cheaper to let it go to waste than to store it. To get to 80% wind and solar, you need a lot of storage. The more you need to store, and the longer you need to store it, the higher the cost. While the first kWh from solar and wind might be cheaper than the peaking power it replaces, the last kWh is not.

Wet, you keep saying we need "a lot of storage". The power generation industry believes the same thing, in spite of the fact that independent experts in the field say this is incorrect. I've referenced three independent industry groups that say we do not need much or any storage once the entire grid is transformed - and I've also linked statements from power generators in areas where this transition is underway and they say things like "wow - we didn't need nearly as much storage as we thought"... It's easy to make general statements then throw rocks, and you're welcome to do that if you think that's the best use of your time. But since my El Nino erosion control projects are now complete, I don't need the rocks.

As for your original premise - you say more renewables requires more storage. The only plan on the table that is devoted only to electricity in the US is (Jacobson/Solutions Project) says you are mistaken. RMI's Reinventing Fire doesn't use storage either, but they keep some gas generation on-line for emergencies. That doesn't support your premise either. I'll keep my bets on RMI, Rifkin, and Stanford as they and their clients around the world are actually doing this work.

Tschüss

edit...fixed quote

 

[WetEV]

they have too much wind and solar right now and not enough storage...We've got regions that are 30, 40, 50, and 60% green electricity and we are losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts because we're not storing the energy. So the electricity is at night because of the wind - we don't need it at night! Sometimes at high-noon there's so much solar going into the grid that we have negative price - meaning the utility pays you to not put the energy on.

Wet, you keep saying we need "a lot of storage". The power generation industry believes the same thing, in spite of the fact that independent experts in the field say this is incorrect. I've referenced three independent industry groups that say we do not need much or any storage once the entire grid is transformed

Then why is Germany "losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts" at something less than 60% green electricity?

 

[AndyH]

they have too much wind and solar right now and not enough storage...We've got regions that are 30, 40, 50, and 60% green electricity and we are losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts because we're not storing the energy. So the electricity is at night because of the wind - we don't need it at night! Sometimes at high-noon there's so much solar going into the grid that we have negative price - meaning the utility pays you to not put the energy on.

Wet, you keep saying we need "a lot of storage". The power generation industry believes the same thing, in spite of the fact that independent experts in the field say this is incorrect. I've referenced three independent industry groups that say we do not need much or any storage once the entire grid is transformed

Then why is Germany "losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts" at something less than 60% green electricity?

Are you under the impression that Germany has completed the transition to the TIR well ahead of their 2050 goal? Do you recognize that Germany's transition is much, much more than just electricity?

Read Reinventing Fire - they lay out a number of proposals and have full accounting for each. Ditto for The Solutions Project.
http://thesolutionsproject.org/
http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire

 

[RegGuheert]

The island example is interesting as it uses well-established storage technology instead of emerging technologies. It should provide best-case cost information for 100% renewable implementations. But while this cost is almost-certainly cheaper than the fossil-fuel-based alternatives, we need to keep in mind that islands often must import the fossil fuels which they burn at very high cost. For instance, electricity costs the consumer about $0.45/kWh in Hawaii. That may mean the cost to the utility may be as high as $0.30/kWh for generation. So perhaps the island in question is able to install a fully-renewable electricity system for $0.20/kWh and still come out way ahead. And at the same time that would confirm exactly what WetEV is telling us in the OP: It costs a lot more to get to 100% than those initial 30%.

I've done a bit more research on El Hierro Island and I have found this article at HydroWorld.com containing quite a bit of detail on the topic. It confirms that the back-of-the-envelope estimates I made above are pretty close to the reality:

High cost of electricity generation on El Hierro of €0.242/kWh (US$0.318/kWh).

Slightly higher than my estimate of $0.30/kWh.

Wind is costing a bit more than I expected:

El Hierro has a total available wind energy resource of 49.6 GWh, which could completely supplant diesel generation while reducing the undesirable consequences mentioned above. Wind energy costs on average €0.072/kWh ($0.095/kWh).

Obviously, if there is ANY cost needed above this value, then OP's thesis is confirmed. The cost of the pumped storage system is that additional cost in this case.

Now for the electricity production:

Annual energy demand on the island is about 35 GWh, and the growth rate has been 8% a year. This is expected to stabilize in the next three to five years at an annual rate of 4%.

Unfortunately, that article does not talk about costs, but this article from RMI does:

Besides reliable electricity, more fresh water, and improved agricultural opportunities, the Gorona del Viento partnership expects to earn over $5 million a year in electricity sales, and save almost $2.5 million a year in diesel imports. Since the whole project cost about $93 million, half of which was funded by a European Union government grant, project partners will recoup their investment relatively quickly.

You can estimate the electricity consumer from the above two quotes (assuming "earn" means profit above operating expenses): $5M/35 GWh = $0.14/kWh profit. Plus the consumer will need to pay for the maintenance costs. I don't know what that is, but perhaps it is only about $0.02/kWh.

If that's what consumers see, then that is a great deal, since they will be paying about 50% of what they did previously. (Somehow I suspect the commercial interests will give much less of this back to the consumers, so perhaps I misinterpreted something here.)

But that's really price. What about costs? One way to look at that is to amortize the $93M over the life of the system. It's a bit hard to do without knowing the operating costs, but lets put it at $1M/year and lets assume zero time-value-of-money for simplicity. If we start with a 25-year lifetime, we come up with the following for generation costs: ($93M + $25M)/(25 * 40 GWh) = $0.12/kWh. I suspect that the life of the pumped storage may be longer than 25 years and the life of the wind turbines may be shorter, but this should be close.

Anyway, it's impressive that a fully-renewable generation solution can be built for about ~$0.12/kWh! I consider this to be close to the best case due to the availability of the wind and the 700m (!) of head available for storage purposes. Hopefully this ends up being a big win for the consumers on El Hierro, not just the power companies. Time will tell. In any case, they should have cleaner air to breath.