![UD_logo[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ud_logo1.gif){kind=logo}
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
Exhibit 2: Renewables have a long way to go:
![640px-Total_World_Energy_Consumption_by_Source_2010[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/640px-total_world_energy_consumption_by_source_20101.png?quality=75)
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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/world-electricity-generatio1.jpg?quality=83)
Source: Sustainable Energy Review, Oct, 2012.
Exhibit 4:
![wind-turbine[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/wind-turbine1.jpg?quality=83)
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/
Friends:
One basic flaw with the discussed ‘analysis’ has not been mentioned; i.e.
if the suggested energy storage system existed then it would be being used.
A grid operator has to match electricity supply to the grid with demand for electricity from the grid. Too little power on the grid and lights go off: too much power on the grid and grid components are damaged so lights go off.
Electricity is wanted all the time but demand varies from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, and month to month.
Hence, many power stations are needed to provide power when demand is higher than average.
The suggested energy storage system would remove need for about a third of power stations supplying to a grid. Reduction of a third of the power stations would be an immense saving.
Richard
Tanks of hydrogen?
I would happily co-exist with a modern nuclear power plant in my suburb, but tanks of hydrogen would see me gettin’ out of Dodge.
As for the putting the thumb on the sales by citing the alleged negative effects of fossil fuels – any chance that they also added in the positives? Like, for instance, that there is not only an ambulance or car to transport you and yours in an emergency, but that there is a functioning hospital at the other end?
Thought not.
The Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific northwest US has a 4700 mw wind system for which they provide a couple near real time graphs and also spreadsheets of past years of wind data.
http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/default.aspx
They only produce 50% or more of rated capacity 25% of the time, while 33% of the time they produce 10% or less of their capacity.
Um…
“generating more electricity than needed during average hours” (and presumably storing it, somehow”) “in order to meet needs on high-demand but low-wind power hours” versus “storing excess power for later high demand.”
Aren’t these basically the same thing?
Storage, storage, storage. Renewable energies are useless without storage. Instead of paying all these greenie crooks $billions to put up monstrous and useless towers we should be concentrating our efforts on storage and distribution. Hydrogen is not a solution it’s a problem.
geoff says:
December 11, 2012 at 3:34 am
I have spoken to Willett about their wind tower at the Univ of Del. Here is a website that shows the power output of the turbine. http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/lewesturbine/
Irelevent, but quite interesting. 18mph wind (about the optimum), 1.4 Mw instead of rated 2Mw. Without storage it still has the same old problem.
I have spoken to Willett about their wind tower at the Univ of Del. Here is a website that shows the power output of the turbine. http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/lewesturbine/
I followed the link. Windspeed 25 m.p.h. Power production: 0 kW. A few minutes later 18 m.p.h. 1263.3 kW, another minute later 27 m.p.h. 1,7 kW, one more minute 22 mph 0 kW, a few more minutes 20 m.p.h and 1148 kW.
It’s either extremely erratic, or cuts out at about 20 m.p.h. wind, or the link is a fake. Hardly much of a confidence builder for wind power.
Oh, now it’s 20 mph and 1589 kW, and with the same rotation speed 16.7 rpm! I guess that lightning strike must have messed up the electronics pretty badly.
richardscourtney @ur momisugly December 11, 2012 at 4:59 am
Agreed – low-cost, efficient & effective Storage is hugely beneficial.
So why did he authors have to be paid to search “28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms” to arrive at your obvious conclusion?
MattS says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:28 pm
@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?
————————–
You’re right. The Sierra Club and WWF will still be fighting their first appeal in 18 years. They’ll never give up control of that much land in a short 18 years.
cn
Batteries!?! The University of Delaware is seriously proposing that we can run the northeast United States on batteries!?!
But, their computer model says it’ll all work!
I wonder how their model hindcasts real life experience in Spain and Germany?
Here in Virginia we are watching (and dreading) the possibility of having a wind farm installed many miles out to sea. My question is this: What happens to these windmills when hit or near-missed by a hurricane? Do they withstand it, or do they start shedding blades and falling over? How do they get fixed, and what happens to the fragments? (Oh, yes, that is more than one question; I haven’t even addressed the bird casualties or any possible problems in shipping lanes.)
If that is what the University of Delaware thinks then let them DEMONSTRATE IT! Let them get off the grid and use ‘A well-designed combination of wind power, solar power and storage in batteries and fuel cells’ and only that for the complete energy needs of the university buildings and dorms.
I am sick to death of the “civilization powered by Unicorn farts’ studies from these ivory tower types. If that is what they and the politicians think then it is about time they lead BY EXAMPLE!
A.D. Everard says: @ur momisugly December 10, 2012 at 6:50 pm
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No need link
Between 14:00 and 14:30 GMT, the output of our, (UK), 5,301Mw of metered wind capacity was…
88Mw
DaveE.
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That he can see Bovine Feces when he reads it.
You make the mistake of thinking that Anthony has not ever looked into renewables before seeing this study.
Here are the articles on just windpower (35)
Today is the coldest day in the UK so far this year. A quick check of national grid demand at 2.30pm showed 50.7GW. Of this 23.1GW was supplied by coal fired generators, 18.5GW by gas fired and 7.8GW by nuclear. Wind power is supplying …. 0.12GW. You have read that correctly: 0.12GW or one quarter of one per cent of the total demand.
“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. “
Are they taking into account the very real pollution from Rare Earth mining in China?
Rare-earth mining in China comes at a heavy cost for local villages: Pollution is poisoning the farms and villages of the region that processes the precious minerals
…they have become a significant trade issue with China, which mines 95 to 97 percent of the world’s supply. Efforts to find alternative supplies have been complicated by the pollution that rare earth mining and processing creates — a factor generally overlooked by China’s producers.
Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for Environment?
crosspatch says:
December 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Has anyone documented the external cost of windmills? ….
_________________________
Yes
WIND POWER FRAUD: WHY WIND WON’T WORK by Charles S. Opalek, PE
“…Wind turbines have an embarrassingly low Energy Returned On Energy Invested value of 0.29. The manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the energy they will ever produce….”
That “study” is pure worm-excrement.
Normally I think your posts here and at your website thoughtful and rational. However, I’m not sure what you’re commenting on regarding my post; maybe you don’t think “inland wind” is as silly as it sounds, but I sure do. And yes, I’ve driven by several large farms of turbines, including California’s. Funny, they were all set up where it is windy. As another poster mentioned, the Eastern coastal plain can not count on nor depend on wind. Not just Delaware, but up and down the entire Eastern seaboard. The Gulf Coastal area is just as windless. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind installing the extra turbines for us in your neighborhood?
Where I live is rural. Not only is it NOT served by natural gas; but I’ve checked and there are currently no plans by either our local governments (County or State), nor our Utility Services for extending the Natural Gas pipes anywhere near us. Otherwise I would’ve installed natural gas equipment already including a generator sized for my house. Power outages are regular here, but unlike the big cities, we’re not likely to get rapid response. We set up the camp gear for cooking and lights in minutes, practice helps.
Diesel? So, how large a tank would I need to install? It used to be easy to install a tank in one’s basement for fuel oil. It is not easy anymore, nor is my basement set up for access by a tanker.
So what’s next? Buying that generator and just hoofing the fuel to it every day from cans I’ve got to fill at the diesel station? Well, the generator sizes you suggested are too small. Those little and cheaper generators are not expected to be used continuously nor for running big power consumption machines. If they are, they wear out quickly and need frequent replacement. My place uses those silly things called heat pumps. I also have a wood stove and used it religiously until health issues bit into the ability to hoof wood in every day, six times a day during cold periods. Plus I run a well pump. 3KW isn’t big enough for daily use. Not even close.
Pretty page. Useless, but pretty. No current power generation, wind speed 22mph, no long term data, no costs whether maintenance or installation. No data files or charts of power nor wind. Maybe it’s there somewhere… Or they could be trying for honesty.
Well the Navy ran the experiment.
Keep an eye on Zinc Air Redox. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_300b4784-bb06-11e0-8066-001cc4c03286.html
From the full article
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.
There are plenty of ‘studies’ that have extremely high externalized cost estimates. Externalize cost estimates are the easiest things to fudge. I.E. Every case of cancer, lung disease, asthma etc is ’caused’ by fossil fuel burning.
In business there is this equation that is relevant 99.9% of the time.
“Any project (product to market, whatever) will cost twice as much, takes twice as long and generates half the expected income then what the initial marketing proposal for the project states.”
So as long as that is kept in mind and factored into the whole thing who knows what might happen.
I don’t think that it is realistic to expect those working on that project to look at it like that.
When I was 21 I did not care much about cash flow, future earnings, replacement costs and the like either so why should I expect an engineering student to consider these things.
I am not suggesting that the scholars working on this project are of that age any longer, just the students formulating and running the computer models.
So now there are no health problems relating to green energy.
A question to these young engineering students.
Why don’t the Australians want to process the rare earth ( for the wind mill magnets) they wish to mine in West Australia in their own country (value added) but propose to do that in Thailand ( if I remember correct, it could be Vietnam), and why don’t the people where this processing plant is proposed to be built want it there?
Could it have anything to do with chemical sludge ponds and radioactive waste?
Are these health problems related to this:
a) perceived only (in the eyes of the greens)
b) real ( in the eyes of the fossil fuel lobby)
and if so how come the groups relating to a and b are reversed when it comes to fracking.
But what is correct I guess is that once that mill churns away 50 miles from where you live in Europe or North America the health effects on yourself will be quite minimal.
(Except when the wind does not blow at night and it is minus 25 C outside, put another log on the fire honey, I am cold).
I love my wood stove in winter, the only thing we need and use to stay warm.
Biomass we call it and our green acquaintances all smile.
So long as everyone is happy.