A LOL ! press release on renewable energy from wishful thinkers at the University of Delaware

UD_logo[1]From the University of Delaware a press release that made me laugh out loud when I read it for the sheer disconnect with reality. The bold in first sentence about the 99.9% is mine. See why I think their press release is ridiculous following the PR (besides the fact that is is just another model made from unicorns and rainbows).

Wind, solar power paired with storage could be cost-effective way to power grid

Article by Teresa Messmore  Dec. 10, 2012–Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses, according to new research by the University of Delaware and Delaware Technical Community College.

A well-designed combination of wind power, solar power and storage in batteries and fuel cells would nearly always exceed electricity demands while keeping costs low, the scientists found.

“These results break the conventional wisdom that renewable energy is too unreliable and expensive,” said co-author Willett Kempton, professor in the School of Marine Science and Policy in UD’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment. “The key is to get the right combination of electricity sources and storage — which we did by an exhaustive search — and to calculate costs correctly.”

The authors developed a computer model to consider 28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms, each tested over four years of historical hourly weather data and electricity demands. The model incorporated data from within a large regional grid called PJM Interconnection, which includes 13 states from New Jersey to Illinois and represents one-fifth of the United States’ total electric grid.

Unlike other studies, the model focused on minimizing costs instead of the traditional approach of matching generation to electricity use. The researchers found that generating more electricity than needed during average hours — in order to meet needs on high-demand but low-wind power hours — would be cheaper than storing excess power for later high demand.

Storage is relatively costly because the storage medium, batteries or hydrogen tanks, must be larger for each additional hour stored.

One of several new findings is that a very large electric system can be run almost entirely on renewable energy.

“For example, using hydrogen for storage, we can run an electric system that today would meeting a need of 72 GW, 99.9 percent of the time, using 17 GW of solar, 68 GW of offshore wind, and 115 GW of inland wind,” said co-author Cory Budischak, instructor in the Energy Management Department at Delaware Technical Community College and former UD student.

A GW (“gigawatt”) is a measure of electricity generation capability. One GW is the capacity of 200 large wind turbines or of 250,000 rooftop solar systems. Renewable electricity generators must have higher GW capacity than traditional generators, since wind and solar do not generate at maximum all the time.

The study sheds light on what an electric system might look like with heavy reliance on renewable energy sources. Wind speeds and sun exposure vary with weather and seasons, requiring ways to improve reliability. In this study, reliability was achieved by: expanding the geographic area of renewable generation, using diverse sources, employing storage systems, and for the last few percent of the time, burning fossil fuels as a backup.

During the hours when there was not enough renewable electricity to meet power needs, the model drew from storage and, on the rare hours with neither renewable electricity or stored power, then fossil fuel. When there was more renewable energy generated than needed, the model would first fill storage, use the remaining to replace natural gas for heating homes and businesses and only after those, let the excess go to waste.

The study used estimates of technology costs in 2030 without government subsidies, comparing them to costs of fossil fuel generation in wide use today. The cost of fossil fuels includes both the fuel cost itself and the documented external costs such as human health effects caused by power plant air pollution. The projected capital costs for wind and solar in 2030 are about half of today’s wind and solar costs, whereas maintenance costs are projected to be approximately the same.

“Aiming for 90 percent or more renewable energy in 2030, in order to achieve climate change targets of 80 to 90 percent reduction of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the power sector, leads to economic savings,” the authors observe.

The research was published online last month in the Journal of Power Sources.

=============================================================

So they say all this can happen by 2030.  Riiiiight.

Exhibit 1:

CHART OF THE DAY: The Epic Implosion Of The Green Energy Bubble

Renixx_greentech_Capture

Exhibit 2: Renewables have a long way to go:

640px-Total_World_Energy_Consumption_by_Source_2010[1]

Source: Total world energy consumption by source 2010, from REN21 Renewables 2012 Global Status Report.

Exhibit 3: Other credible sources figure only an 8% growth over current levels by 2030.

World-Electricity-Generatio[1]

Source: Sustainable Energy Review, Oct, 2012.

Exhibit 4:

wind-turbine[1]

During the study period, wind generation was:

* below 20% of capacity more than half the time;

* below 10% of capacity over one third of the time;

* below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve;

* below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/06/whoa-windfarms-in-uk-operate-well-below-advertised-efficiency/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mario Lento

I could not find Renixx on yahoo finance, but all solar and green companies follow the same trend. Here’s a link of the trend from the peak of about 5 years ago through now… compared to the Dow Jones. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ASTI+Interactive#symbol=asti;range=5y;compare=%5Eixic;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

RobW

BRIDGE FOR SALE, BRIDGE FOR SALE…

Chris B

There won’t be many birds left with 40,000 wind turbines making mincemeat out of them, not to mention the effect of the peculiar sounds waves they generate on those pesky humans that tend to inhabit areas that require electricity.

Well… er… they said it would be cheaper… er… Right? And… um… maybe if they say it again – convincingly, like – it, um, might be… true…???
They really must think we’re dumb. Clearly they are not paying attention to facts and figures, and clearly they hope we’re not, either! They think we can all be hoodwinked again – and again and again, etc., etc. Sounds like they are trying to back their promises that “renewables” would be cheaper by saying, “Ah, but they WILL be cheaper.” Followed by a “Trust us,” and the never ending, “Send us more money or it’s your fault it won’t work.”
By the way, I liked the picture of the exploding windmill. Can we have some more of those, please? I’d really love to lay my hands on a bazooka.
🙂

Did they take into account conversion and storgae inefficiencies, one wonders?
Another fine example of how universities are sheltered workshops for the mentally disabled.

DickF

Love that delicious, pure Kool-Aid. Drink up!

Other credible sources figure only an 8% growth over current levels by 2030.

Uhm, growth from 20% of 22,100 Twh to 28% of 37,100 Twh is 135% grown in Twh, not 8%. While it is an increase of 8% share, it is an increase of 135% in power output.

George

LOL is right. 99.9… 24*7*52 = 8736 * .001 = 8.736. Almost 9 hours a year without power is acceptable, right? Assuming their made up 99.9% is correct. Based on the wind capacity alone, looks like 1 “9” might be a challenge.

Doug Badgero

The “EASTERN WIND INTEGRATION AND TRANSMISSION STUDY: Executive Summary and Project Overview” is available here: “http://www.uwig.org/ewits_executive_summary.pdf”
The cost is actually about 40 billion ANNUALLY for 30% wind power penetration just in the eastern interconnect. Note that this is above the reference case that assumes about 6% wind penetration. 20% penetration via the least cost method is about 15 billion annually above the reference case. The effect is highly non-linear and it would be much more to increase renewable penetration above 30%. This effect can be seen in the report. These people are technically illiterate fools.

jeanparisot

How does a community college justify a PR staff?

I believe this report wholeheartedly! Every well-designed system will eventually be efficient and cost effective. Otherwise, it would not be well designed!

mbw

A person with no training in energy production – who has not even read the actual study – thinks it sounds funny. He then posts some irrelevant but colorful charts. What should we conclude from this?

Dave N

I stopped reading once I reached “computer model”. How about they build one first that proves the concept, before becoming too excited. Meanwhile, back in reality..

tobyglyn

“The cost of fossil fuels includes both the fuel cost itself and the documented external costs such as human health effects caused by power plant air pollution.”
Astonishing!

Brian R

“Could be”
As as Wayne once said, “and monkeys might fly out of my butt”.

John M

“The cost of fossil fuels includes both the fuel cost itself and the documented external costs such as human health effects caused by power plant air pollution.”
And as a life-long fan of the Detroit Lions, I can assure you they could beat the Green Bay Packers, as long as the Packers were properly forced to play with bricks in their pants.

Niff

The study used estimates of technology costs in 2030 without government subsidies, comparing them to costs of fossil fuel generation in wide use today. The cost of fossil fuels includes both the fuel cost itself and the documented external costs such as human health effects caused by power plant air pollution. The projected capital costs for wind and solar in 2030 are about half of today’s wind and solar costs, whereas maintenance costs are projected to be approximately the same.
So if we guess that renewables will be half the capital cost in 2030, and add the human health “cost” of the dirty power plants, and ignore that the maintenance costs are steeply rising on the nearly new windmills, and subtract the number we first thought of, it will even out? Based on the rated CAPACITY of the said windmills? You cannot be serious?
I realise they are fishing for compliments from the green lobby, but are they not cogniscent of the ridicule from everyone else?

old engineer

Yes indeed, LOL. Or more accurately ROTFLMAO. Power generation and distribution are not my field, but even I know that you can’t just “let the excess go to waste.” The mind envisions very large banks of resistors to use up the excess electricity generated (extra heat into the atmosphere. OMG, more global warming!)
Then there is the matter of storage. There are currently no cost effective utility size battery storage units. Hydrogen for fuel cells? Where does that come from?
Then there is: “and for the last few percent of the time, burning fossil fuels as a backup.” But since there is no way to know when that backup will be needed, spinning reserve will still be needed 24/7.
There is actually a utility size storage system that has been used around the world for over 100 years. That system is pumped storage (e.g. see the UK’s Electric Mountain). The fact that the study didn’t even mention pumped storage shows these researcher were computer jocks, not engineers.

William

Those advocating the green scams have determined they need storage devices. Curious, that key component was forgotten.
A recent scientific Scientific American article noted the best storage device if massive amounts of hydroelectric power are not at your door step, is compressed air. The article notes a loss of roughly 30% to compress the air and to convert the compressed air to electricity. Also noted is natural gas to heat the expanding air to avoid damaging the turbine due to cold air striking the turbine.
The article neglected to mention an additional component is required – super high voltage power DC power lines – to transmit the electric power from regions that are windy to regions that require electric power. The conversion losses to convert DC back to AC and the transmission losses are roughly 30% to 40% depending on distant.
Unfortunately the green scams are proposed to funded directly or indirectly by tax payers.

Patrick

I agree with Dave N…

Pat Frank

David Legates must be grinding his teeth. The press release and the quote from Mr. Cory Budischak reveal a mistaken conception of models that has become very widespread. They treat model results as data rather than as predictions.
Examples: Press release, “A well-designed combination of wind power, solar power and storage in batteries and fuel cells would nearly always exceed electricity demands while keeping costs low, the scientists found.
Mr. Budischak, “we can run [a purportedly sustainable] electric system that today would meeting (sic) a need of 72 GW, 99.9 percent of the time…” (my bold).
These people express certainties, when in fact they possess no more than predictions. Their failure to critically distinguish between model results and experimental facts is pernicious and infects many branches of science these days; most especially climate science.
Computer outputs are presented in formats previously developed to present real data. The visual analogy seduces many into believing the outputs are in fact, real data. They’re not. They’re predictions, at best.
Even worse, the predictions of Misters Kempton and Budischak are based on speculative variables of cost, reliability, and technology, rather than on well-tested engineering data. In order to actually determine whether it will work in physical reality, or not, they’d have to actually build and test a physical system using their model parameters. Good luck with that.
It would be criminally irresponsible to spend any money, time, or effort building their system for real service before extensive real-world testing. It is a gamble that bets a speculative outcome against the lives of large populations.

David L. Hagen

At least the PR journalist makes some remarkable statements:

The researchers found that generating more electricity than needed during average hours — in order to meet needs on high-demand but low-wind power hours — would be cheaper than storing excess power for later high demand. . . .When there was more renewable energy generated than needed, the model would first fill storage, use the remaining to replace natural gas for heating homes and businesses and only after those, let the excess go to waste.”

How do you “generate” more renewable electricity than needed without “storing” it and to “let the excess go to waste”?
Large dissipative resistors to heat air?

TomE

Somehow I feel that the students who are “learning and being trained for a useful profession” by the professors in this college and department are not getting their money’s worth. As usual, what is taught in the nation’s colleges and the real world are far apart.

KevinK

Ok, I have an admission to make here;
I have a BSEE degree from the University of Delaware; it has served me well in my professional pursuits over the last three plus decades. I consider it a fine school, as do many others. A chemical engineering degree from UD is like GOLD, thanks in part to the DuPont family. The other school (Delaware Technical Community College) mentioned in the article was considered a poor choice for a quality engineering education ever back then in the 1970’s.
I also did a summer co-op thing at a place called the “Institute for Energy Conversion”, or IEC for short at the University of Delaware. That would be in the summer of 1978 (or maybe 1979, my memory seems to fade faster than the output from an aging solar cell) shortly after the oil embargo and assorted worries about running out of oil, etc. I discarded the 20 plus year old tee-shirt a while back. Back then they were talking the same stuff, solar cells so cheap to manufacture you could use them as roofing shingles, etc.
Of course nobody has found any “NEW” semiconductors that are suitable for making solar cells since then. So they still have about the same conversion efficiency, lifetime problems, toxic waste output, etc, etc, etc. I’m still waiting for the “breakthroughs”, they should be here any day now……………
So it sounds like very little has changed in 3 decades.
On a different note, have I told you about the AT&T folks making fiber optic cable near Atlanta circa 1980 who “projected” that there would be fiber optic connections to 75% of homes in the USA by 1985 or 1987…… That was another university I attended.
Cheers, Kevin.

Thumper

The question is real simple. Will you put your own money where your mouth is?

gnomish

” we can run an electric system that today would meeting a need of 72 GW… using 17 GW of solar, 68 GW of offshore wind, and 115 GW of inland wind,” said co-author Cory Budischak, instructor in the Energy Management Department at Delaware Technical Community College and former UD student.”
mmk… to do 72GW requires 17 + 68 + 115 = 200GW of green ™
“One GW is the capacity of 200 large wind turbines or of 250,000 rooftop solar systems. ”
mmk… so to get the 200GW of green ™ takes only FORTY THOUSAND large wind turbines – or – FIFTY MILLION rooftop solar systems…

Gary Pearse

So the author is a marine science professor. Don’t they graduate engineers in Delaware anymore?
“…since wind and solar do not generate at maximum all the time.”
I think this qualifies as a quote of the week. I note they also add greeny health costs to the costs of using natural gas fired electrical. I don’t suppose there could be any hazards associated electricity and hydrogen storage tanks, or huge batteries and fuel cells? This touting the high efficiency of wind and solar is a Rip Van Winkle wake up statement from years ago.

Russ R.

Remarkable bait and switch.
Opening claim: “Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030”
They explain how: “…using hydrogen for storage, we can run an electric system that today would meeting a need of 72 GW, 99.9 percent of the time, using 17 GW of solar, 68 GW of offshore wind, and 115 GW of inland wind”. Minor detail… that’s 200 GW of renewable capacity to provide 72 GW of power demand… but no big deal.
They sneak in a caveat: “reliability was achieved by: expanding the geographic area of renewable generation, using diverse sources, employing storage systems, and for the last few percent of the time, burning fossil fuels as a backup.” WTF? Fossil fuels from where? None of the 200 GW of capacity were fossil fueled. And how much exactly is “the last few percent”?
They try to explain: “During the hours when there was not enough renewable electricity to meet power needs, the model drew from storage and, on the rare hours with neither renewable electricity or stored power, then fossil fuel.” So, how much unmentioned fossil fuel capacity will that require? Oh… that’s right… 72 GW. So the model really requires 272 GW of generating capacity to meet 72 GW of demand.
Then they drop in another little detail: “Aiming for 90 percent or more renewable energy in 2030”. So it would appear that “the last few percent of the time” is actually 10 percent minimum. And that the opening claim that “Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time” was completely BS. Wouldn’t it make much more sense (and cost much less money) to just build 80GW of fossil fuel generating capacity (allowing >10% reserve margin) and call it a day?
Thank you University of Delaware for wasting all of our time (and tax money).

One of the worst things about this whole scam is that they just keep on lying. No matter the evidence, no matter the logical argument, they roll out the same claims, unending and unchanging.
It’s blinkers in place, keep walkin’, keep talkin’, keep taking the money, all the way.
I know it’s in their best interests to put a face on it that there is no doubt, that there is a consensus – as though that’s important. I understand the ploy. They’ve practiced “show no doubt” for years, pretending “clearly and obviously everyone else is with us, you may as well be also, and prove you are not one of the ignornant and the foolish,” but COME ON ALREADY!
These people KNOW they are lying and cheating. They are not “mistaken” or “misguided” and nor did they ever have our best interests at heart. These guys are criminals and have been for quite some time. They KNOW their thieving is bringing destruction to civilization. They KNOW their claims and their actions are already KILLING PEOPLE.
This is above and beyond a snout in the trough or sticky fingers in the till.
We need leaders worldwide who will come forward and not be afraid to PROSECUTE these animals! I do NOT believe the human species has become so cowed and so weak that such people are not already in the making.
And Hansen DARES call scientific questioning a “crime against humanity”? Have you noticed how the extremists ARE and DO what they claim to fear?
Where are the organizations that are supposed to keep us safe from tyranny? Where are the checks and balances that keep our governments from going rogue? Is everyone so roped and chained that these criminals will be allowed to die peacefully in their beds before ever hearing the clang of a jail door? They fear it now – just look at their faces – Is there anyone, anywhere, silently gathering evidence and warrants and making ready with the handcuffs? When this fraud – this massive crime – can no longer be refuted, will there be a swoop on the whole poisonous bunch of them?
TO POLITICIANS EVERYWHERE – if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Either clean up this mess, this fraud, or be cleaned up with it. It is time that more of you – AND the media, too – join the right side, the honest side that is working so hard for truth, freedom and humanity.
Sorry, Anthony, everyone, this was not supposed to be a rant. The tide is turning, but it would turn a lot faster if politicians and reporters and judges and anyone who can make a difference just woke up and jumped to the side that actually cares about the planet and the people on it. Thirty years or more of this Green BS is too much. It’s got to stop.

mbw says:
December 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm
A person with no training in energy production – who has not even read the actual study – thinks it sounds funny. He then posts some irrelevant but colorful charts. What should we conclude from this?

He’s “crowdsourcing” the expert replies.

Excel (the model!) is known to cause unwarranted assumptions to become progressive facts. They couldn’t find an accountant to help them?

Doug Badgero

On the health effects of fossil fuels:
These studies use epidemiological studies and linear no threshold models for health effects. Very few things in nature are linear and NONE in biology are that I am aware of. Simply consider the effects of vitamins, too little bad, too much bad, sometimes very bad. Even properly done the error bars would be very large.
Even if the best science suggests there are some negative health impacts from fossil fuels, who says society would choose to monetize them? There are significant negative health effects associated with operating an automobile also. We, as a society, could mitigate many of those effects. Yet no one is seriously proposing we all drive around tanks at 10mph.

BarryW

I live right down the road from their Lewes, DE campus. They have a 2 megawatt wind turbine that was installed two years ago. I don’t know the actual duty cycle, but it seems like it’s off more than it’s on. They claim 9+ megawatts generated with 2 mwatts sold to the local energy coop. It’s also been struck by lightning and home owners near the site are complaining about the noise and danger from a catastrophic failure. The homeowners are claiming there was a lot more damage from the lightning strike than the University will admit. I can hear it if the wind is right and I’m a mile away from it.

Oh-That-Thing-Happened-Again-Out-Of-Heathrow-From-Doha-DangItAll

I will quote the lyrics from George Thorogood and the Delaware Destroyers: I Drink Alone.
I drink alone, … yeah
With nobody else
I drink alone, … yeah
With nobody else
You know when I drink alone
I prefer to be by myself
Every morning just before breakfast
I don’t want no coffee or tea
Just me and good buddy Wiser
That’s all I ever need
‘Cause I drink alone, … yeah
With nobody else
Yeah, … you know when I drink alone
I prefer to be by myself
The other night I lay sleeping
And I woke from a terrible dream
So I called up my pal Jack Daniel’s
And his partner Jimmy Beam
And we drank alone, … yeah
With nobody else
Yeah, you know when I drink alone
I prefer to be by myself
The other day I got invited to a party
But I stayed home instead
Just me and my pal Johnny Walker
And his brothers Black and Red
And we drank alone
Yeah, …. with nobody else
Yeah, …. you know when I drink alone
I prefer to be by myself
“And I drinks alone.” 🙂
Cheers
XD

LOL was first used during a conversation I had with a nurse (shut-up she said she was a nurse on duty) that described her self as being very attractive, who went on to tell me that she had removed what she was wearing, with which I replied “LOL”. She asked me could I expand LOL for her, which I replied, Yes! it means ‘Laugh Out Loud’, her reply was LOL. That was in ancient times, the good old days before climate science invented everything.

R. Shearer

Many things are possible. If one had shorted $10,000 worth of the RENIXX in 2002, covered and went long in 2003, then went short in 2004, then covered and went long in 2005 and held through the end of 2007, shorted in early 2008, covered, then went long in 2009 and finally shorted again, held and covered anytime in 2012, then one would have over $1,000,000.
Not a bad return for 10 years of “investing” in green energy. Of course Al Gore made 100 times that amount.

joshv

I am just not seeing where they account for the cost of building this infrastructure out. Also, not sure how they account for transmission costs and building the grid required to move the power from where the wind is blowing/sun is shining, to where it isn’t.
Also, as other’s have pointed out – what do with the electricity from a grid that generating 3x the current load? Run it through massive banks of giant resistors? Exactly how much heat does wasting 2/3rds of this grids generation create?

Darren Potter

“Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030”
“at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses”
Did UofD hold a “bring food day”?
Did Prof. Willett Kempton double-down on brownies?
Did Delaware recently Legalize Pot?

P. Hager

Old Engineer, Actually there is a utility scale storage battery that works. It is a pumped hydro storage system. It stores the energy as potential energy using gravity. The problem is I can just see all of those enviros signing on for the reservior projects that would be needed t make this work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Tom O

The one thing everyone fails to take into consideration is that they are talking about a parity in “cost” of power as well as capacity. The present administration does intend to drive the cost of conventional power from coal and oil out of sight. Parity in cost can happen then, but at significantly higher levels than we are currently used to, thus subsidies are not neeeded. Enormous increases in cost of power will cause a reduction in usage thus lowering the amount required to meet the needs. Since energy from any other source other than renewables will be discouraged, then the only place for investment will BE in renewable sources.
One other thing to consider is that there will be a reduction in population forced on the world by then, so again, demand goes down and renewable sources may well be able to satisfy the needs of those that can afford it. Recall that those with the big bucks are only 1% of the population. It may be possible to make energy so expensive that you only need to supply the 1% plus the government, industry, and retail outlets. Don’t think that what they are talking about necessarily applies to the world that we know – it may apply to the world that may be in the wings waiting to take center stage.

davidmhoffer

There is no acronym adequate to describe my mirth!
So, they made up a bunch of assumptions that have no basis in reality, then built a model that looked at 68 billion combinations of their unrealistic assumptions, and they STILL had to throw in a fudge factor called “external costs such as human health effects” to get the answer they wanted.
Is there anyone out there stupid enough to believe this tripe? Wait….
Pat Ravasio, are you following this thread?

Has anyone documented the external cost of windmills? What is the environmental cost of a copper mine and smelter? I would say the environmental impact of the typical copper mine is millions of times more than the impact of a single well, pumping away, day after day, with daisies growing around it and lizards sunning themselves on the concrete pad. Take several thousand acres of desert, deprive the surface of sunlight by installing a solar array, dump a bunch of water on it at regular intervals as you wash those arrays and you completely destroy the native habitat and turn it into something else. Also, semiconductor manufacturing is not exactly environmentally friendly nor is battery production / disposal. Solar arrays can not be recycled but the steel from an oil well can be.
Seems to me that overall, an oil well is much more environmentally friendly. I passed hundreds of wells pumping away in the same fields that grow our food in the Midwestern US last year. Where does all this environmental “damage” of oil drilling come from in their minds? The site of an oil well isn’t that much different than the construction site for a house where a well must be drilled. Oil well sites aren’t “dirty”.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead

mbw says:
December 10, 2012 at 7:01 pm
A person with no training in energy production – who has not even read the actual study – thinks it sounds funny. He then posts some irrelevant but colorful charts. What should we conclude from this?
Well, mbw, since nobody seems too interested in answering your loaded question, perhaps you would be so nice as to enlighten us? But before you do, let me hazard a guess. 1) You have training in energy production. 2) You have read the actual study and 3) you don’t think it sounds funny.
Am I getting warm? Oh, and you posted some relevant charts….no. OK, three out of four isn’t bad. Still doesn’t answer your rhetorical question.

MattS

@crosspatch
Actually going from 20% share to 28% share would be a 40% increase. 28/20 = 1.4
It gets tricky when you are talking about percentage increases in percentages.

Gunga Din

From Deleware, the state that kept returning Joe Biden to the Senate …

Actually going from 20% share to 28% share would be a 40% increase. 28/20 = 1.4

No, look closely. Going from 20 to 28 of the same AMOUNT would be a 40% increase, but going from 20% of a smaller amount total, to a 28% share of a larger total amount is a larger increase in power output. We are talking about going from 4,420 Twh to 10,388 Twh. That is a 135% increase.

MattS

@joshv,
“I am just not seeing where they account for the cost of building this infrastructure out. Also, not sure how they account for transmission costs and building the grid required to move the power from where the wind is blowing/sun is shining, to where it isn’t.”
Forget the cost. Even if you assume zero cost, how are we supposed to build out that much infrastructure in 18 years?

catcracking

I’m afraid there will be a lot of unqualified engineers on the unemployment line if this is what they are teaching in Biden country.

ShrNfr

I had a solar system up and running for a while. 10KW plate with 100KWH of batteries behind it. It is down at the moment since I am replacing the inverter/charge controllers. But in any event there have literally be a number of months in which the system generated only single digits in KWH due to overcast. I put the system in to help me through extended power outages due to ice storms in MA. Bottom line is solar is ok providing you have coal/ng/hydro as a backup. If not, you cannot rely on it for extended periods of time spanning weeks.