THE DISASTROUS ECONOMICS OF TRYING TO POWER AN ELECTRICAL GRID WITH 100% INTERMITTENT RENEWABLES

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The effort to increase the percentage of electricity generated by intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar inevitably brings about large increases in the actual price of electricity that must be paid by consumers. The price increases grow and accelerate as the percentage of electricity generated from the intermittent renewables increases toward 100 percent.  These statements may seem counterintuitive, given that the cost of fuel for wind and solar generation is zero. However, simple modeling shows the reason for the seemingly counterintuitive outcome: the need for large and increasing amounts of costly backup and storage – things that are not needed at all in conventional fossil-fuel-based systems.  And it is not only from modeling that we know that such cost increases would be inevitable.  We also have actual and growing experience from those few jurisdictions that have attempted to generate more and more of their electricity from these renewables.  This empirical experience proves the truth of the rising consumer price proposition.

In those jurisdictions that have succeeded in getting generation from renewables up to as high as about 30% of their total electricity supply, the result has been an approximate tripling in the price of electricity for their consumers. The few (basically experimental) jurisdictions that have gotten generation from renewables even higher than that have had even greater cost increases, for relatively minor increases in generation from renewables. As the percentage of electricity coming from renewables increases, the consumer price increases accelerate.

Article ends with
The study’s lead author commented that“[d]iversity of supply is an essential bedrock for security and reliability for an electric power system that is as big and diverse—and as crucially important—as that of the United States.”See http://news.ihsmarkit.com/print/node/23497

Moreover, policies that promote increased use of wind and solar would likely result in little to no reduction in the level of electric sector CO2 emissions:

Ironically, addressing climate change concerns with federal and state policies to subsidize and mandate wind and solar electric generation produced the unintended consequence of distorting wholesale electricity market clearing prices and driving the uneconomic closure of nuclear power plants—a zero-emitting source. The result has been some power system CO2 emissions remaining constant or increasing, …
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/the-disastrous-economics-of-trying-to-power

[Bigun]

In those jurisdictions that have succeeded in getting generation from renewables up to as high as about 30% of their total electricity supply, the result has been an approximate tripling in the price of electricity for their consumers. The few (basically experimental) jurisdictions that have gotten generation from renewables even higher than that have had even greater cost increases, for relatively minor increases in generation from renewables. As the percentage of electricity coming from renewables increases, the consumer price increases accelerate.

All one needs to know right there as far as I'm concerned @IsailedawayfromFR.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

All one needs to know right there as far as I'm concerned @IsailedawayfromFR.

When one looks at what is best for the consumer like that article did, the results will never ever favor renewables.

[Bigun]

When one looks at what is best for the consumer like that article did, the results will never ever favor renewables.

It has been stated here many times before but without government interference, those renewables would disappear very quickly. 

[roamer_1]

When one looks at what is best for the consumer like that article did, the results will never ever favor renewables.

As defined, you're right... Other means may present... And I am somewhat open to that - providing that feasibility is not artificially arranged... I am all for alt energy where it can stand on it's own. And I really like energy becoming more distributed - Solar with Grid as an example - the two together would be distributed yet robust, which makes it hard to knock all the way out, and should wind up cheaper, with unused energy sold to the grid offsetting residential cost...

It ain't there yet. But it is getting closer.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

As defined, you're right... Other means may present... And I am somewhat open to that - providing that feasibility is not artificially arranged... I am all for alt energy where it can stand on it's own. And I really like energy becoming more distributed - Solar with Grid as an example - the two together would be distributed yet robust, which makes it hard to knock all the way out, and should wind up cheaper, with unused energy sold to the grid offsetting residential cost...

It ain't there yet. But it is getting closer.

It will remain non-competitive economically as long as this is happening. 

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,371891.msg2031417.html#msg2031417

[bigheadfred]

They are going backwards with hydro. Hydro is probably the least developed energy source.

There are a lot of dams in this country that could be producing electricity, but aren't.

[bigheadfred]

I don't think hydro is considered a renewable energy source.

[thackney]

When one looks at what is best for the consumer like that article did, the results will never ever favor renewables.

Hydro power is a renewable energy source.

There are places where wind and solar are used economically without subsidy.  Don't blame a technology for how politics have misused it.

[thackney]

I don't think hydro is considered a renewable energy source.

Yes, hydro is a renewable energy source.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=renewable_home

[bigheadfred]

Yes, hydro is a renewable energy source.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=renewable_home

I haven't kept up. But a few years ago, the enviros were hellbent on saying it wasn't.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwik9IjD6v_jAhXSJzQIHdPZDLMQFjARegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2F20140710135110-294192772-why-hydroelectric-power-isn-t-considered-renewable&usg=AOvVaw36CkM_wzFCtz3vILoSk928

Why Hydroelectric Power Isn’t Considered Renewable
Published on July 10, 2014

https://ivn.us/2011/04/26/bizarrely-enough-hydropower-not-considered-renewable-energy-california/

Bizarrely enough, hydropower not considered renewable energy in California
by Bob Morris, published Apr 26, 2011

[thackney]

I haven't kept up. But a few years ago, the enviros were hellbent on saying it wasn't.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwik9IjD6v_jAhXSJzQIHdPZDLMQFjARegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2F20140710135110-294192772-why-hydroelectric-power-isn-t-considered-renewable&usg=AOvVaw36CkM_wzFCtz3vILoSk928

Why Hydroelectric Power Isn’t Considered Renewable
Published on July 10, 2014

https://ivn.us/2011/04/26/bizarrely-enough-hydropower-not-considered-renewable-energy-california/

Bizarrely enough, hydropower not considered renewable energy in California
by Bob Morris, published Apr 26, 2011

It is more a case of the government trying to force increased efficiencies and growing the resource in more public acceptable steps.

If you are interested, read from the current RPS eligibility guidebook explaining how larger hydropower facilities can also qualify to be counted in the CA list of meeting their mandated renewables.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/renewables-portfolio-standard

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hydro power is a renewable energy source.

There are places where wind and solar are used economically without subsidy.  Don't blame a technology for how politics have misused it.

not having a subsidy does not qualify energy as more economic than any other.

Where did you get that idea?

And hydropower is definitely not on the renewables crowd's preferred list.

Finally, guess what? Hydrocarbons and nuclear can be classified as renewable as well.  Who can dispute they are not?

[thackney]

not having a subsidy does not qualify energy as more economic than any other.

Where did you get that idea?

Where did I say that?

There are places where wind and solar are used economically without subsidy.  Don't blame a technology for how politics have misused it.

And hydropower is definitely not on the renewables crowd's preferred list.

I'm not claiming the eviroMENTALists prefer it.

Finally, guess what? Hydrocarbons and nuclear can be classified as renewable as well.  Who can dispute they are not?

I'm not sure about nuclear, but hydrocarbons are, technically just solar power stored in chemical form.

[Free Vulcan]

We could put solar, wind, and hydro everywhere and we still couldn't generate even a respectable fraction of the gigawatts needed to serve the current load.

That's the bottom line disasterous economics of alternative energy.

[thackney]

We could put solar, wind, and hydro everywhere and we still couldn't generate even a respectable fraction of the gigawatts needed to serve the current load.

That's the bottom line disasterous economics of alternative energy.

Almost 20%, is that respectable?  Just a bit behind Nuclear.

[roamer_1]

We could put solar, wind, and hydro everywhere and we still couldn't generate even a respectable fraction of the gigawatts needed to serve the current load.

That's the bottom line disasterous economics of alternative energy.

That's more right than not @Free Vulcan , but there is another aspect - Robustness is hard to have without the rigid grid. But alt energy offers distribution and redundancy. It is pretty easy to knock out a power station, but if every home had solar too, losing the grid for a while would be less painful...

And I know how unreliable solar is - If I nail down my current adventure, I will be building a fully off grid cabin, using solar and hydro for power. I get it.

[Free Vulcan]

That's more right than not @Free Vulcan , but there is another aspect - Robustness is hard to have without the rigid grid. But alt energy offers distribution and redundancy. It is pretty easy to knock out a power station, but if every home had solar too, losing the grid for a while would be less painful...

And I know how unreliable solar is - If I nail down my current adventure, I will be building a fully off grid cabin, using solar and hydro for power. I get it.

And IMO that's where alternative should stay - in the off grid home market. Expensive yes, but if being disconnected and/or unreliant on the grid is a priority, that is where it's most valuable.

[Free Vulcan]

Almost 20%, is that respectable?  Just a bit behind Nuclear.

Not really considering that most of it is subsidized.

But that aside, being that we already have wind and solar in the prime spots, everything that would come after that would be diminishing marginal returns. Not economically speaking, but in terms of power generation.

There would come that point where you would put solar in say, Seattle and barely bump up the generation capacity because it's so cloudy and rainy there. Or some place like Florida for wind.

You'd arrive at that plateau point long before you'd cover demand.

So do I call it respectable, in terms of base load reliability? No.

[bigheadfred]

The Untapped Potential of America's Hydroelectric Power

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/11/hydroelectric-power-energy-dams/416910/

Constructing new dams is highly difficult, both for the capital costs of the actual construction and because they impose massive changes on a river’s ecosystem. But the vast majority of existing dams in the U.S.—more than 90 percent, or 80,000 dams—don’t produce electricity. They just hold back water, which can be useful for things like flood control, irrigation, and navigation.

From a 160 page PDF: https://energy.gov/sites/.../Hydropower-Vision-Chapter-2-10212016.pdf

Hydropower Vision Report Chapter 2 - Department of Energy

Hydropower is the primary source of renewable energy generation in the United States, delivering 48% of total renewable electricity sector generation in 2015, and roughly 62% of total cumulative renewable generation over the past decade (2006-2015) [1].

Hi @DeerSlayer

Something fun for you to think about.

[Joe Wooten]

The Untapped Potential of America's Hydroelectric Power

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/11/hydroelectric-power-energy-dams/416910/

Constructing new dams is highly difficult, both for the capital costs of the actual construction and because they impose massive changes on a river’s ecosystem. But the vast majority of existing dams in the U.S.—more than 90 percent, or 80,000 dams—don’t produce electricity. They just hold back water, which can be useful for things like flood control, irrigation, and navigation.

From a 160 page PDF: https://energy.gov/sites/.../Hydropower-Vision-Chapter-2-10212016.pdf

Hydropower Vision Report Chapter 2 - Department of Energy

Hydropower is the primary source of renewable energy generation in the United States, delivering 48% of total renewable electricity sector generation in 2015, and roughly 62% of total cumulative renewable generation over the past decade (2006-2015) [1].

Hi @DeerSlayer

Something fun for you to think about.

Most of those dams are on intermittent runoff creeks. not enough constant flow to justify a hydro unit.

[Cyber Liberty]

And IMO that's where alternative should stay - in the off grid home market. Expensive yes, but if being disconnected and/or unreliant on the grid is a priority, that is where it's most valuable.

Someone is building a huge data server farm near me.  It will be powered by a system of solar panels, the plan is to take no power from a grid.  This place has about 350 days of sunshine per year.

[Hoodat]

Finally, guess what? Hydrocarbons and nuclear can be classified as renewable as well.  Who can dispute they are not?

I get your point on hydrocarbons, but I don't buy in to the 'oil came from dinosaurs' mantra.

[Hoodat]

I haven't kept up. But a few years ago, the enviros were hellbent on saying it wasn't.

The leftist envirowackos don't want hydro to be classified as "renewable" because it will make it much harder for them to tear down dams.

[thackney]

I get your point on hydrocarbons, but I don't buy in to the 'oil came from dinosaurs' mantra.

Mostly algea, plankton and the like buried away from oxygen in the sediment.  From the "dinosaur age", it was just an ad campaign.

[Hoodat]

Mostly algea, plankton and the like buried away from oxygen in the sediment.  From the "dinosaur age", it was just an ad campaign.

Except that algae, plankton, etc. already contain oxygen.

[bigheadfred]

Most of those dams are on intermittent runoff creeks. not enough constant flow to justify a hydro unit.

I know that. And that info is probably buried in that pdf somewhere. My point is that there is a large amount of hydro that could be generated without going through a ten year permitting process.

[Free Vulcan]

Someone is building a huge data server farm near me.  It will be powered by a system of solar panels, the plan is to take no power from a grid.  This place has about 350 days of sunshine per year.

Out there is probably a good bet. Here in Iowa we get about 2/3 that.

[Hoodat]

Someone is building a huge data server farm near me.  It will be powered by a system of solar panels, the plan is to take no power from a grid.  This place has about 350 days of sunshine per year.

So how will it get power at night?

[bigheadfred]

So how will it get power at night?

Only the Shadow knows.

[Cyber Liberty]

So how will it get power at night?

I am assuming storage is a good chunk of the construction price.     The idea is to keep it off-grid.

[Cyber Liberty]

I know that. And that info is probably buried in that pdf somewhere. My point is that there is a large amount of hydro that could be generated without going through a ten year permitting process.

I'd hate to write the Environmental Impact Statement for a project that would wipe out thousands of acres by creating a lake.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

So how will it get power at night?

[bigheadfred]

I'd hate to write the Environmental Impact Statement for a project that would wipe out thousands of acres by creating a lake.

No doubt. It takes ten years and millions of dollars of your own money.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I get your point on hydrocarbons, but I don't buy in to the 'oil came from dinosaurs' mantra.

Your belief could be correct, but there are plenty that say otherwise.

I entered the petroleum industry 46 years ago as a petroleum engineer and was told by some why bother as we would run out of oil in 10 years.

Since that time, we have greatly increased both production and reserves worldwide.  A limit as yet has not been found, which has greatly frustrated the naysayers.

Like the sun to keep warm and grow things, God gave us a gift of oil, gas and coal to provide for our energy needs.  Packaged up in these resources we mine are dynamos of potential we can transport and using low footprints of extraction.   Like a seed that grows from the earth into a plant so we could eat, these dynamos are perfect for our energy uses.

And we have just taken on the conventional resources in just a few places on this earth.  Very little artic or the oceans.  And most unconventionals are waiting.  As are the ocean hydrates, even methane floating around the atmosphere we could extract like the windpower and solar guys are doing.

Just how we do we know there is a limit on the amount of hydrocarbons?  It may not be a dinosaur thing but a self-generating mechanism within the earth.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Where did I say that?

The refrain 'using economically' is normally synonymous with the best economic usage.  I agree that one could be economic without it being the best economics.

[thackney]

The refrain 'using economically' is normally synonymous with the best economic usage.  I agree that one could be economic without it being the best economics.

I would say we use multiple sources of energy for power generation without subsidies, coal, Nat Gas, Petroleum Coke, hydro.  They are all economic.  They cannot all be best. 

And in a few places, I've had solar and/or wind for power because that was the most economic in the remote location with small power needs.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I would say we use multiple sources of energy for power generation without subsidies, coal, Nat Gas, Petroleum Coke, hydro.  They are all economic.  They cannot all be best. 

And in a few places, I've had solar and/or wind for power because that was the most economic in the remote location with small power needs.

Being an Economist for quite some time in industry, I typically would say what is 'Economic' is what would have the BEST economic criteria, if that is the sole criteria for deciding the worth of a project one wishes to pursue.  Lots of things may be 'economic' from robust economics to marginal economics.

Sometimes other than the best economics is the deciding factor to pursue a project(eg - get it online quicker or in today's world to provide a more restrictive environmental footprint, etc.). 

Why perform economics at all if one is not striving to achieve the most optimum economics?  Only if something else needs to be considered.

The project you are describing for solar and/or wind for power for remote locations seems to be the BEST economics, not for other reasons, but this may not be wrong.

[thackney]

Why perform economics at all if one is not striving to achieve the most optimum economics?  Only if something else needs to be considered.

I guess my viewpoint is simpler.  I look at it to make money, not lose money.  What other people have managed to do is interesting, but not my primary concern.  It may be my goal, but I need to be positive, not negative in the cash flow, at least on average.

Cheers!

[Cyber Liberty]

I guess my viewpoint is simpler.  I look at it to make money, not lose money.  What other people have managed to do is interesting, but not my primary concern.  It may be my goal, but I need to be positive, not negative in the cash flow, at least on average.

Cheers!

You mean we can't make it up in volume?   

[thackney]

You mean we can't make it up in volume?   

Were you the salesman at an old engineering/construction company where I worked?  The one that went out of business?

[Cyber Liberty]

Were you the salesman at an old engineering/construction company where I worked?  The one that went out of business?

No, I worked for a good company that got sucked up by a Dutch company in the M&A craze a couple years ago in the semiconductor industry.  It's how I got retired.  They decided to ship all the R&D to labs in China, a stupid move I'm convinced will bite them badly in the coming years.

(I'm glad I retired, BTW.  The view from my new Castle is awesome, something I could never have when I was tethered to the big city.  I thank God every day for my beautiful wife, who made it happen.)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I guess my viewpoint is simpler.  I look at it to make money, not lose money.  What other people have managed to do is interesting, but not my primary concern.  It may be my goal, but I need to be positive, not negative in the cash flow, at least on average.

Cheers!

Making money is important, but making more money is even more important.

Guess I think as an investor not an engineer.

[thackney]

Making money is important, but making more money is even more important.

Guess I think as an investor not an engineer.

In Midstream, we often have to be first, to secure the contract.  Getting there with good enough is far more important than perfect and too late.

[Smokin Joe]

More like:

It has been stated here many times before but without government interference ^serious infusions of our money^, those renewables would disappear very quickly.

[Smokin Joe]

Your belief could be correct, but there are plenty that say otherwise.

I entered the petroleum industry 46 years ago as a petroleum engineer and was told by some why bother as we would run out of oil in 10 years.

Since that time, we have greatly increased both production and reserves worldwide.  A limit as yet has not been found, which has greatly frustrated the naysayers.

Like the sun to keep warm and grow things, God gave us a gift of oil, gas and coal to provide for our energy needs.  Packaged up in these resources we mine are dynamos of potential we can transport and using low footprints of extraction.   Like a seed that grows from the earth into a plant so we could eat, these dynamos are perfect for our energy uses.

And we have just taken on the conventional resources in just a few places on this earth.  Very little artic or the oceans.  And most unconventionals are waiting.  As are the ocean hydrates, even methane floating around the atmosphere we could extract like the windpower and solar guys are doing.

Just how we do we know there is a limit on the amount of hydrocarbons?  It may not be a dinosaur thing but a self-generating mechanism within the earth.

I have a book in my office from 1947 about 'When the oil runs out". I keep it as a reminder that for geologists, the next big play is often outside the box. I worked my first horizontal well in 1990, and my first Bakken horizontal in 2000. Still looking for the 'next big thing'.

[Smokin Joe]

Mostly algea, plankton and the like buried away from oxygen in the sediment.  From the "dinosaur age", it was just an ad campaign.

It is more about depth of burial and thermal maturity of the organic rich sediments than age, and most come from marine environments. Between 8500 and 11000 ft., as a rule for oil on the continent is the real 'goldilocks window' for thermal maturity in a basin, although gas (and oil) can be found deeper or shallower, depending on the local geology. In some places, the rock was buried deeper than that, the trap efficient enough to retain the hydrocarbons, and erosion and uplift brought the resource closer to the surface. SOmetimes migration upward along fractures and faults can do the same thing.

[Bigun]

More like:

Exactly my meaning @Smokin Joe.

[ChemEngrMBA]

I get your point on hydrocarbons, but I don't buy in to the 'oil came from dinosaurs' mantra.

I spoke to a geologist from Canada a few years ago.  He works in the oil industry up there.  I said I didn't believe that a bunch of ferns and trees failed to decompose, and were smashed into oil, all around the world, and pushed under sea and under thousands of feet of rock formations.  Where is this happening today!!! 

He agreed with me completely.

Incidentally, oil companies have leaks in their steel tanks all the time.  How is it that fossil fuel is so perfectly preserved, even under pressure!  And it doesn't all leak out like our gas tanks have a tendency to do?

[thackney]

sigh...

USING MICROFOSSILS
IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html