Does Battery Backup Make Large Scale Wind/Solar Viable?

The Costs Of State Renewable Energy Mandates

Quote:

---

...The authors of Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver? found that seven years after REMs are enacted, renewables’ share of electricity generation increases by only 1.8 percent. They also found REMs raise retail electricity prices by 11 percent. After 12 years and a 4.2 percent increase in renewables’ share of generation, these prices rise by 17 percent. Altogether, the total extra electricity costs of REMs to consumers in the states that have enacted an REM are $125.2 billion.

The study also reveals reducing carbon dioxide emissions through an REM costs between $130-$460 per ton of carbon dioxide abated. These increased costs are, at the low end, almost three times higher than the social cost of carbon estimated by the Interagency Working Group set up by the Obama administration, which is roughly $46 per ton for 2020. (It should be noted that whether there is a “social cost” to carbon dioxide emissions at all is debatable.)

...The findings of this study are not surprising and have been mirrored elsewhere. States with these mandates had electricity prices 26 percent higher than those without. The 29 states with renewable energy mandates (plus the District of Columbia) had average retail electricity prices of 11.93 cents per kilowatt hour (cents/kWh), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. On the other hand, the 21 states without renewable mandates had average retail electricity prices of only 9.38 cents/kWh.

In just 12 states, the total net cost of renewable mandates was $5.76 billion in 2016 and will rise to $8.8 billion in 2030, a 2016 study revealed. A 2014 study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found replacing conventional power with wind power raises electricity prices 50 percent and replacing conventional power with solar power triples electricity costs. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be around $5.7 trillion, and a 2019 brief from the Institute for Eenergy Research estimates that the idea of getting to 100 percent renewable generation is “nothing more than a myth,” and that attempting to do would be a “catastrophe” for our country...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/...ice-increases/

---

I hear that about fish tanks, mgrist. I originally had a second power source to power my aquariums too. I finally switched to a more reliable power source - my vehicles hooked to inverters.

Hunter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UTAH

I hear that about fish tanks, mgrist. I originally had a second power source to power my aquariums too. I finally switched to a more reliable power source - my vehicles hooked to inverters.

Hunter

---

When my house got hit by a tornado in 94 the first thing I did once I could get to the house was to take the sump pump out of the boat and threw it down into the wet dry filter hooked to my trolling motor battery that kept the water moving until I could figure out what I was going to do with half a house.
I had an inverter in my work truck but it never crossed my mind, until now. Good idea! I couldn't live in the house so really couldn't leave a truck running anyhow, yea that's it.:o:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacojoe

The Costs Of State Renewable Energy Mandates

A 2014 study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found replacing conventional power with wind power raises electricity prices 50 percent and replacing conventional power with solar power triples electricity costs. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be around $5.7 trillion, and a 2019 brief from the Institute for Eenergy Research estimates that the idea of getting to 100 percent renewable generation is “nothing more than a myth,” and that attempting to do would be a “catastrophe” for our country...

---

The voters voted for it here but im not sure about the other states. Of course everyone is happy when they get tax breaks, but it feels a little different for this issue because I dont know a single person who regrets their vote mandating the 10 or 15 % we have. Its almost like clean energy is a luxury people around here are happy to pay for. :shrug:

The evolution away from fossil fuels will have a great impact on our local economy because we are close to coal and natural gas deposits. The mines are shutting down as are the coal fired plants and the local politicians and planners are scrambling to backfill the growing revenue hole.

I live smack dab in the middle of the CO2 red spot everyone has seen on that map. Ironically about the only action around here is Kinder Morgan Thumbdn drilling for CoO2 and piping it to Texas. Maybe the red spot will move.:tiptoe:

More ugly math about renewables — this time about solar.

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...gy_racket.html

Quote:

---

...Utility-scale solar requires a large solar farm consisting of photovoltaic panels. For $100 million, one can buy a solar farm capable of generating about 80 megawatts of electric power when the sun is squarely shining on the panels. Depending on the geographical location and the climate, the average power generated will be about 18 megawatts, more during the day and nothing at night. More in summer and less in winter. If the power can be sold for $50 a megawatt-hour, about the cost of wholesale electricity generated by natural gas, the annual revenue earned by the plant would be $7.8 million. But why would anyone want to pay $50 per megawatt-hour for electricity that does not work at night or when the weather is bad? Better to buy it from a natural gas plant that one can count on.

How much would a utility really be willing to pay for erratic electricity from a solar farm? The answer is $20 per megawatt-hour or less. The reason is as follows. No utility would ever incorporate a solar plant to reliably provide electricity. Solar electricity is unreliable. But solar electricity, if it is cheap enough, could be used as a supplement to save fuel in a utility's main natural gas plants. When the solar was working, some of the utility's gas plants could be throttled back to save fuel. The fuel to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity in a modern natural gas plant costs about $20.

How much does the electricity from a $100-million solar plant cost? The biggest cost is the $100 million spread over the 25-year life of the plant. If you take out a 25-year, $100-million mortgage, the annual payment will be between about $7 million and $9 million depending on the interest rate of between 5 percent and 8 percent. A 5% interest rate is what a corporation with excellent credit might get. With fair credit, a corporation might get 8%. If a corporation has a poor credit rating, nobody is likely to loan it $100 million. The plant will produce about 157,680 megawatt-hours of electricity per year, 18 megawatts per hour average times 8,760 hours per year. The cost of the electricity, counting only the contribution from the construction cost of the plant, will be between $45 and $60 per megawatt-hour. If you sold this electricity to a utility for $20 per megawatt-hour, you would lose millions every year. If all costs are taken into account, the real cost of utility-scale solar power, where there is excellent sunshine, is about $70 per megawatt-hour.

Solar electric plants are being built because there are two subsidies and one mandate...



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz5n5GlKnr4
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

---

There are other types of commercial-sized solar plants such as Ivanpah in California, which the taxpayers backed even though Google owns it. I would like to find current financials on them as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacojoe

I agree that future revolutionary battery innovations are holding us back and seem on the verge of happening, but... Lot’s of really bright people are working on it 24/7, and I am shocked more has not come of it.

---

Yes, Joe - that's where I'm coming from as well. Let's hope the scientists working on this issue do well.

Hunter

Energieweinde, the vast German experiment in “renewable” energy production has ground to a halt and is spectacularly failing even as its proponents are trying to export the concept to vulnerable “developing” countries much less economically capable of adopting the failing concept. The one realization that never seems to dawn on the ecochondriacs is that the vast majority of people are unwilling to return to a pre-modern lifestyle.

Quote:

---

...Many Germans will, like Der Spiegel, claim the renewables transition was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.

The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#53690688ea2b

---

Quote:

---

The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.

---

The Author of Joes quote above; Michael Shellenberger
I am a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. My writings have appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Nature Energy, and PLOS Biology. My TED talks have been viewed over 1.5 million times.

Bankruptcy/distressed sales looming all over Euro wind projects...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/...oneymoon-over/

Interesting graph demonstrating the that electrical rates rise corresponding to the amount of renewable energy in the system —

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Scre...8.20.04_AM.png

I'm struggling a bit with what that graph is telling us beyond the big picture. Looking at the 4 data points at 225 watts/capita there is a cost variance of what, 100%? Which geopolitical factor accounts for that assuming the technology was freely available (none are commies who would would distort through monopoly power, or trade barriers:rolleyes2:)? The old cost of living argument doesnt even work (ie--switzerland, etc).

Something tells me the data is being influenced by the definition of renewables (hydro?):shrug:

Australia is the big outlier factor at that level, and I recall they had a huge storm that blew over a large number of their wind mills and power lines a couple of years ago. That may have factored into the calculations as costs would skyrocket.

Yeah, something funky is probably going on with the data. I don't know squat about utilities but I think the way a large capital repair would work in the US would be to get insurers to cover the lump sum with the ratepayers covering premium increases or interest costs. I'm sure the facility owner* would try to pass it all along to the ratepayers anyway but I would hope the public utility commission or equivalent would intervene. But it makes the point that the data is not apples=apples.

*Some of these new projects like what you pointed out are now privately owned or PPP's. I don't know how they are regulated or if they even follow the same rules as a public utility:shrug:

I'm getting more and more suspicious of all of these analyses (to the point that I immediately assume them to be wrong). There are so many footnotes and asterisks that the process is manipulated to support the desired conclusion. Hell, I read and wrote board reports for ten years :angel: Everyone has a clever way to account for the butterfly effect :rolleyes:

I'm not old enough to remember the funding arguments around the space program but my whole life I have enjoyed the benefits of "space age technology". Since our government has gone all in on green (as many of the citizens desire), I am watching the green revolution with great interest to see if our investment pays off with the same kinds of breakthroughs. I hope it does.:usa:

And I completely agree that renewables can't compete on cost.

My real problem with populist programs is that I believe I share the Earth with a bunch of morons and I don't care for them having a say in how I live my life.:peace:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CactusCurt

Yeah, something funky is probably going on with the data. I don't know squat about utilities but I think the way a large capital repair would work in the US would be to get insurers to cover the lump sum with the ratepayers covering premium increases or interest costs. I'm sure the facility owner* would try to pass it all along to the ratepayers anyway but I would hope the public utility commission or equivalent would intervene...

---

We are seeing a test of your issues in California now unrelated to “renewables” as a result of the fires last year there which have put major utilities in bankruptcy, I think. The fires were presumably started by poor planning/execution of power lines that probably caused the fires from winds. They are being sued into oblivion. I read last week those utilities have announced severe reduction in service when high winds couple with dry, high fire conditions in the summer. Good luck Californians in those areas!

An engineer explains the physics of why the constant deluge of articles and pronouncements that “renewables” will displace fossil fuel sources of energy and will be “all we need” is utter nonsense. Read it and weep greenie Utopians —

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ear-impossible

Quote:

---

...This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

Among the reasons:
*Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.

*Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.

*Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

*The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand...

---