 |
Smart Grid TechnologyIf renewables can meet 80% of our electricity needs, what are we waiting for?
|
Jun 21, 2012
|
|
| |
|
|
Calling it the most comprehensive analysis of high-penetration renewable electricity in the continental U.S. to date, a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) says renewable generation from technologies that are commercially available today are more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 – as long as we also have a more flexible electric system.
According to NREL's Renewable Electricity Futures Study, the increased electric system flexibility needed to enable electricity supply-demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply and demand side options, including:
· Flexible conventional generation
· Grid storage
· New transmission
· More responsive loads
· Changes in power system operations
But there are challenges, of course. At such high levels of renewable electricity generation, the report points out that the unique characteristics of some renewable resources, specifically geographical distribution and variability and uncertainty in output, pose challenges to the operability of the nation's electric system.
Cost has also been an issue with renewables, but the NREL study finds that direct incremental costs associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios -- and that improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost.
Bottom line, results from the DOE-funded analysis, indicates renewable generation could play a more significant role in the U.S. electricity system than previously thought. Makes us wonder, do we really have to wait until 2050?
Get a copy of the report >>
| If renewables can meet 80% of our electricity needs, what are we waiting for? |
| Renewable energy progress is waiting for electric utility people to get on the bus. These employees have significant leverage to influence their customers adoption of renewable generation. It isn't happening because fixed mindsets due to the century-long monopoly business orientation. Indeed, organizational cultural inertia must be addressed if real change to take place at a faster pace. Jim |
| Jim Walters - 06/21/2012 - 06:29 |
| Renewables by 2050 |
| This is a matter of National Will but that aspect of politics I will set aside as we have political paralysis... I am confident that Operations can be adjusted to handle a extremely large influx of renewables. I see the issue being with required Transmission upgrades if there are to be source concentrations such as Wind in the Western Dakotas. Every state along the path will want to extract either money or worse a "let's get some power here" mentality [akin to getting an interchange on the Interstate Highway] - which likely would make Operations a mess. It seems the backbone would have to be HVDC so it can be buried as only dreamers will believe that OH AC can be built on any large scale without massive opposition and significant delay. |
| James Scheiderich - 06/21/2012 - 06:49 |
| If renewables can meet 80% of our electricity needs, what are we waiting for? |
| Begging to differ with Mr. Walters, utilities, their regulators, and their customers are waiting for the economics of renewables to make sense. If renewables were economic, utilities would be investing in and supplying renewable energy without any hesitation. The truth is, solar and wind are still very high cost options, even with significant federal and state subsidies that artificially skew the economics in their favor. The cost situation is worse when you consider billions of dollars in new transmission that might be required. Utilities are actually indifferent to the technology used for power production, but our customers and our regulators are not indifferent to the costs. When utility customers have been offered programs that would allow them to purchase green power at a cost-based premium, very few customers actually sign on. |
| Paul D. Olivier - 06/21/2012 - 06:58 |
| Renewables by 2050 |
| I haven't read the report yet, but I'm familiar with many of the issues. I'd agree that the technical and operational problems can be solved today with current technology (and perhaps a bit of imagination on the part of grid operators and policymakers). However, even if the capital cost of power plant hardware (wind turbines, PV panels, or the heliostat/power tower/storage equipment) is competitive with gas-fired generation, there's still the problem of supply continuity. That's going to require either massive amounts of storage to hold several days worth of supply for instances when the sun doesn't shine and/or the wind doesn't blow, or lots of redundant supply and a massive overlay transmission system to carry regional surpluses to areas that are short. NO matter how one tries to spin this particular issue, ensuring a consistent, reliable supply of renewable is going to be more expensive than providing it from fossil fuels. Policymakers, the public and the Pollyannas that believe renewable energy is a panacea need to understand that it is not going to be cheap. |
| Jack Ellis - 06/21/2012 - 07:05 |
| Renewables |
| I agreed with Paul D. Olivier. It is a matter of cost. But it is also a matter or reliability. Right now we tend to have highly reliable generators as the base load and flexible generation as the peaking generation. Using 80% renewables would mean having highly variable and costly, unreliable generation as the base load. It would still require having very reliable and quick responsive generation as peaking load and occasionally as base load when there is no wind and no sun. There are many times when there is no wind and no sun over large areas for hours and sometimes days. Can storage handle that? No. There will be a need to have all the coal and gas plants in waiting. |
| Richard W.D. Ganton - 06/21/2012 - 07:36 |
| If renewables can meet 80% of our electricity needs, what are we waiting for? |
| Well stated Mr. Oliver. You summed up the co-op utility's thoughts and experiences very accurately. Think Tanks and Government Organizations should be but are not always conscience of how "Green" initiatives effect the rate payer. |
| Jeff Budke - 06/21/2012 - 07:51 |
| Direct Cost vs. Real Cost |
| Jack, renewable power may not be cheap up front, but sticking with status quo, carbon-intensive energy sources will be extraordinarily costly in the long run. Economics is skewed toward short term, direct costs; regulators and utilities should be thinking long term. |
| Greg Morris - 06/21/2012 - 10:34 |
| The holdups: Money & Reliability |
| Wind power costs about $2,000/KW nameplate just for the windfarm. The best land-based windfarms have capacity factors of 32% so their grid contribution is about 2,803KWh per nameplate KW available when the wind chooses to blow and not available when it doesn't. Then there is the matter of spending a few billion on long distance transmission lines. It requires a fully rated fossil fuel facility for backup. Solar PV costs about $4,000 to $5,000/KW nameplate. A suntracking array located in a prime sun area has a capacity factor of about 20%. Each KW of capacity will put about 1,752KWh on the grid each year. It is not available at night, creeps up in the early sunlight hours, increases progressively as the sun approaches a zenith, then starts dropping with increasing rapidity as the sun's angle to the location changes. No power at night and low power during cloudy days. It requires a fully rated fossil fuel facility for backup. Ultra-supercritical coal facilities cost about $2,500/KW nameplate but will put about 8,322KWh on the grid annually per KW of capacity. Somewhere around 12% extra capacity is desired for reserve typically. Power is available around the clock as desired or needed. A gas turbine combined cycle facility costs about $1,110/KW and will put about 8,322KWh on the grid per KW nameplate capacity. Somewhere around 12% reserve capacity is typically desirable. Power is available around the clock as desired or needed. Wind or solar will need energy storage to provide round the clock power (not to mention steady out the highly variable output). Energy storage in its present state of development costs about $1,000 per KWh of storage. To match the reliability of a coal fired or GTCC facility requires just a tad over 3KW of wind turbines installed per KW of fossil facility plus 16.3KWh of energy storage per KW of capacity. Solar PV would need 5KW of solar PV capacity per KW of fossil capacity plus 19.2KWh of storage capacity. |
| Mark Byron Wooldridge - 06/21/2012 - 15:57 |
| RE:80% by 2050 |
| So I've been out of town and missed the fun, but I can not resist pointing out that the original story said "80% by 2050" Presently all energy production in the US has some form of subsidy. Oil, coal, gas -- have tax breaks and exploration incentives. Solar and wind have their own incentives. Nuclear was(is) heavily subsidized... (last count is $12B US tax dollars for plant to try to glassify the nuclear wastes...) Trying to figure out which energy production method has the most subsidies only works for today. Not 2050. So I would ignore those details in this debate. By 2050 - new transmission and distribution systems will be required to support the population growth. I do not believe you can argue accurately that renewables will require a larger investment than the equivalent alternatives. Comparisons for solar are on the high side... as of this last week it is closer to $2000/KW if you simplify and drop off the trackers. With the cost of polySi dropping nameplate cost may be under $1000/KW by 2015. Unfortunately energy yield will still be much lower than gas or coal. However if by 2020 we find CO2 is indeed a major contributor of global climate change - the additional carbon capture hardware for the coal and gas plants may reduce their energy yields and increase their costs well beyond that of solar or wind. Wind generation equipment has been lowering in price. Like solar it is nearing parity. By 2050 energy storage via battery, compressed air(gas), hydrogen should be solved and economical. The lack of economical energy storage to smooth out the demand is part of the problem with adoption today. Back to the original question of why not adopt it now... there isn't a compelling need and it still isn't economical in 2012. That doesn't invalidate the NREL report that says 80% by 2050. If bought a new car in 2008 before the "cash for clunkers" program began -- would it make sense to trade it in six months later for a newer model? Nope! I expect a car to last at least 7 years. So next replacement would be 2015. Bulk generation is similar - why invest and replace if we are not beyond the useful life? Utilities, regulators and investors all want the best return for the least risk and lowest cost. Large scale it still isn't there. Small scale it might be. And by 2030 (not 2050) the 'true' risks and costs for renewables will better the 'true' risks and cost of coal/gas. |
| Dennis Heidner - 06/27/2012 - 01:34 |
|
|
|
|
Talk Back
