![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/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
STORAGE?
The people who still believe we can store the needs of an industrialized society in lakes or behind dams need to hear this:
The Three Gorges Dam in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam) is one of the biggest dams for power storage in the world, and cost 18,500 Billion euros (!!!).
It produces on paper 80 TerraWatthour = 288 Peta Joule.
The Netherlands (small industrialized country with 16 million people) uses yearly 3,492 PetaJ. (http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0201-energiebalans-Nederland-(stroomdiagram).html?i=6-40)
If you would want to be able to store all of that you would need 12 Three Gorges dams.
If (a very BIG IF) in my totally flat little country it would be possible to create a lake of 632 km2 with an elevation difference of 110 meters (LOL), twelve of these would take up 22% of the total area of the Netherlands…
Dream on….
John F. Hultquist says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Mention is made of hydrogen tanks and using hydrogen for storage…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I freaked a little when I saw that too. Nothing like having a tank of hydrogen blow and take out a concrete wall to give you a healthy respect for the stuff.
Electricity + Hydrogen ???? No where near me thank you very much.
The same goes for CO2 sequestering. Another very dangerous idea. I rather deal with fracking.
Just how many mega tons of batteries would one need to buy in order to buffer the output of wind and solar? Not to mention the fact that you would need something like 10 times as much wind power generation to cover the fact that it is reliably available less than 10% of the time. And that’s before considering the not inconsiderable losses from charging and discharging those same batteries.
The idea that wind and solar will ever be able to cost effectively replace fossil fuels is so laughable that only a liberal could ever believe it.
“Where I live is rural. Not only is it NOT served by natural gas”
Sure it is, just not by pipe. You should be able to get CNG delivered by truck. Maybe even LNG. I think E.M. Smith might have been talking about people making their own such as “wood gas”.
Hmmm. If we assume their generation numbers, that’s ~36,000 five-megawatt turbines. A Phillips Electric study at http://www.phillipselectric.com/pdf/WTG_NREL-Wind-Turbine-Design-Costs-Model-2005.pdf quotes an installation cost of about $1200 per kW of generation capacity (2005 numbers, a 1.5 MW turbine as a baseline). So 36000 turbines * 5000 kW * $1153/kW works out to about $207 billion.
The $1153/kW is for land-based turbines. Shallow-water installed costs are about 2x that.
Someone could work up current cost figures, but I can’t see how it’d be substantially cheaper.
That’s a bunch of money to chop birds.
sophocles says:
December 11, 2012 at 1:45 am
Hydrogen TANKS? Ah. Does this mean for long term storage?
I may be operating under a misconception—or even three.
However, it is my understanding hydrogen is one of the, if
not *the*, most difficult substances to contain in any container….
________________________________
Got it in one. The stuff is a royal B…ch to keep from leaking. You are talking one electron and a proton, the smallest atom there is.
Oh, and do not forget the stuff is very flammable. link
The problem we have with wind and solar is that when that power is most abundant, a good portion of it is switched out of the grid because it is too disruptive. There have been several times when “alternative” energy has had to be dumped from the grid because there is simply too much of it in a location to be effectively used by the grid. We tend to get a lot of it when we don’t need it and not enough when we do.
If you will scroll halfway down this page, you will see the current production in California of “renewables”. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
We are, as I type this, getting about 400 Mw of power from solar and 100 Mw from wind, statewide. How much did all of that wind and solar cost to install and connect? That single 500 Mw plant in Riverside is currently generating as much power as all the wind and solar in the state. The previous day’s production is available here:
http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
So yesterday we saw peak wind production of 262Mw and peak solar of 891 mW (pv + thermal) so the two combined produced about as much power as the Moss Landing power plant. So the entire installed base of wind and solar in California produced about the output of a single conventional power plant for about 6 hours time and much less for the other 18 hours. This is what we call in my family a “huge waste of money”.
Jim G says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm
“I read a great article on Spice modeling of RF circuits.
The spice program made an assumption that a resistor and capacitor were not necessary.
Once included by an override, it then worked.
One of the commentors remarked about a quote from his boss.
“All models are wrong. Some are useful.”
Since the engineering and physical sciences need to back up models by hard data from prototypes, why don’t the climate sciences need to validate their models?”
Though I do not have a problem with your post, I do have a problem with your name as I am Jim G and you are not me.
Regards,
The Original Jim G
PS So how do we work this out? Pistols are my preference as swords are slow and painfull.
osopolitico says:
December 11, 2012 at 3:09 am
It is obvious that the solution to the use of renewables is the law. At present the necessary laws are not in place. Legislatures can and do change laws. Write your congress-critters and demand the the 2nd law of thermodynamics be changed in order that the production of energy for nothing is permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It has already been done!
GOTTCHA snicker
Of course after Indiana House Bill No. 246, 1897, known as the Indiana pi bill one never knows what type of idiocy politicians will try to pass.
The only real power storage solution that I know that actually works is by the Kinzua dam in PA. The blew the top off of a mountain, and use the hole to hold water that they pump uphill during the night, then let flow back into the resevoir during the day to supply the peak power without draining the whole lake.
geoff says:
December 11, 2012 at 3:34 am
I have spoken to Willett about their wind tower at the Univ of Del…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I love it here is what they have up now:
Current Turbine Conditions
Wind speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: N
Rotor rotational speed: 0.3 rpm
Power output: 0.0 kW
———————————————
In addition to all of the other problems, a more tightly integrated grid means more vulnerability to EMP and solar storms. Not good strategic thinking.
Craig Moore says:
December 11, 2012 at 7:51 am
Keep an eye on Zinc Air Redox. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_300b4784-bb06-11e0-8066-001cc4c03286.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or it could be just another rip-off like Maurice Strong and Al Gore set-up with Molten Metal Technology
And “green” energy is so, ummm, well, “green” .. right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
Dear Anthony, Don’t laugh too loudly too early, but have a look at the history of innovation and how much was considered impossible or funny at the time.
It may even be time for sceptics to concentrate more on the science rather than energy policy (here the battle may well be lost); and give up laughing at technological change as pursued in the ‘North’. The main drivers of this in my mind, are innovation and security, not science. The latter was mainly, for the real policy-makers, (who are??) a plausible and fashionable excuse to away with the transfer of wealth away from current consumers. Sonja
e.g.
· Yet-Ming Chiang of MIT got an innovation award for improving the performance of lithium-ion batteries. (The Economist Technology Quarterly Dec.1 )
· The greatest potential (for innovation in energy) ,’lies in storage’, an area attracting a serious entrepreneurial interest.’ Intermittency still bedevils renewable energy..’ (FT.com Ingenuity 6 Dec.)
Solar Energy: TÜV Rheinland Involved in Construction of World’s First Commercial Fresnel Solar Power Plant as an Independent Certifier
Construction of the solar thermal power plant Puerta Errado 2 / Quality inspections and acceptance tests
Cologne/Calasparra, Spain, November 15, 2012. TÜV Rheinland accompanied the construction of the first commercial solar thermal power plant, Puerto Errado 2 in Spain, as a neutral certifier. On behalf of the general contractor Novatec and the client Tubo Sol PE2, the testing service provider’s specialists examined all phases of construction of the power plant as an independent certifier and accompanied the relevant quality inspections until the plant was commissioned. “Through our monitoring activities, we helped to recognize and tackle potential challenges at an early stage,” says Thomas Stüber of TÜV Rheinland. Their neutral status enabled the specialists of the world’s leading testing service provider in the solar industry to mediate successfully between the companies involved when there were differences of opinion. A TÜV Rheinland team will accompany the project for one more year up until the final tests.
The solar thermal power plant Puerto Errado 2 is based on what is known as Fresnel collector technology, in which steam is extracted via a collector array for energy production. The solar steam generator deployed has a mirror surface of more than 300,000 square meters. The power plant produces up to 50 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year and will cover the needs of more than 12,000 households in Spain
[NB: This may not involve storage..}
….Across the world, well over 500 manufacturers of photovoltaic products are customers of the independent testing service provider, TÜV Rheinland. Not only are the specialists involved in testing modules and components – they are also developing new test methods, collaborating on R&D projects for the use of solar energy, and assisting customers worldwide with the construction of solar power plants. More information about test programs for photovoltaic components can be found at http://www.tuv.com/en/media-solar
_________________________________________________________________________
Wijnand says:
December 11, 2012 at 8:07 am
STORAGE?
The people who still believe we can store the needs of an industrialized society in lakes or behind dams need to hear this….
_________________________________
The USA has the Appalachian Mtns. running from Maine to Florida along the east coast. Highest peak of 6,684 ft (2,037 m) and Length of 1,500 mi (2,400 km)
The Rocky Mountains in the west have a highest peak of 14,440 ft (4,400 m) and a length of 3,000 mi (4,800 km) They run from Canada to New Mexico. The Rockies vary in width from 70 to 300 miles. There is also the The Sierra Nevadas in California, and the Cascades in the North West MAP
Elevation and valleys for potential storage are not a problem in the USA. What IS the problem is the Sierra Club and other Greenies screaming bloody murder if anyone THINKS about building a dam. Heck we have plenty of potential for hydro-power but instead the Greenies are pushing politicians into Removing Dams and Restoring Rivers.
The insanity factor is really incredible now a days. The only goal that I can see that makes any sense is the deliberate destruction of Western Civilization so THEIR idea of Utopia can be implemented. Unfortunately they do not have the scientific or engineering background to do anything but kill off civilization.
Gail Combs, I believe the Zinc Air Redox approach was developed with DoD money with the basic research work at Lawrence Livermore.
@crosspatch,
I live in Wisconsin. I don’t know about other areas of the country but here in rural communites where home delivery of gas for cooking/heating is needed what you get is LP (liquified propane) not either CNG or LNG. Natural Gas is prmarily methane.
@Chuck Nolan,
“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.”
Even if you could get the environmentalist groups out of the way and break ground tomorrow building that much infratructure in just 18 years would still be impossible.
Gail Combs, we’ll see. I believe the Zinc Air REdox approach was developed with DoD money at Lawrence Livermore.
Jim G says:
December 11, 2012 at 9:09 am
Since the engineering and physical sciences need to back up models by hard data from prototypes, why don’t the climate sciences need to validate their models?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Politics
I can see how some people are not going to be very happy with this report because the “engineers” failed to model the enormous unseen cost of the loss of the productivity and enjoyment of the present system – the regional grids, plants, coal, meters, and appliances already in use and working efficiently.
In the Financial Post, a commentary about subsidies for renewable energy businesses and electric cars.
Obama’s Fisker cliff
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/12/10/terence-corcoran-obamas-fisker-cliff/
@E.M.Smith: make Texas look like a wasteland of Three Armed Bandits
I’m going to make use of that. My guess is that General Electric uses this as a business model:
And this from the guy who builds the “Three Armed Bandits”.
“Does Communism work?”
Immelt: “The way I play it, it works for me.”
Another one of those studies which, while probably well intentioned, obviously didn’t have an actual power systems engineer involved.
I know two very experienced and open minded ones, the kind of guys who could & do design and cost out regional level power grids, and have _decades_ of experience with this stuff, and if you ask them the answer is unless ” magic” happens renewable energy is a complete and utter waste of time for anything but highly local situations.
They don’t mind it, but it’s just irrelevant economically looney noise on the outskirts of reality for them. They know that the uptime goal is 100%, that you need safety margins for peak loads, and that a couple of cents per kwh makes a HUGE difference on the economical viability of your economy. They also know when their grids fail people start dieing and the economy sputters.
Their dislike of simplistic and stupid studies like this , well, “scathing” doesn’t being to cover it.
As one of them said: “Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”