![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.
What they neglect to say is the way this is made to work is with Smart Meters This allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced.
So it seems the “Conspiracy Nuts” were correct. Smart meters are installed to allow the shut-off to the little guy without disrupting the big guys. Also you have no choice. It is a done deal and if you do not like it you are cut loose from the grid PERIOD.
We have Duke Electric and a Smart Meter. Duke is shutting down four coal plants in NC. Duke Energy shut down Buck units 3 and 4 in mid-2011… Duke Energy shut down Dan River coal-fired units in 2012. We just had a 15 min blackout on a bright sunny day. I wondered why we were getting so many more blackouts.
Smart Meter Deployment <a "Remote meter turn on and off – Smart meters enable Dominion to turn your electric service on and off without having to send an employee to your home or business."
From a NIMBY site
That Nuclear was not evaluated for cost effectiveness & etc. tells you just how intellectually polluted were the minds that generated this Magic Beanstalk claptrap.
Good God, who green-lights these Proclamations?
Gail Combs-
“…Smart Meters. This allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced.”
I have advocated for several years now that customers who really really want to experience renewable energy such as wind or solar farms, should have their smart meter toggled on and off in synchrony with the power delivery from the wind farm or solar farm. As an added bonus, they can be charged a premium cost that accurately reflects the true cost of the ‘free’ energy. Smart meters with hourly billing and remote disconnect capability are a major step towards achieving this energy utopia for the green crowd.
Funny thing, though. The climateers never voice any support for my proposal. Hmmm…..
E.M. Smith says:
December 11, 2012 at 12:03 am
My impression is that the energy problems in California under Gov. Davis were caused by external manipulation of energy markets.
But you seem to be implying – please hasten to correct me if I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion – that GD was directly responsible for the energy crisis in California at the time, and getting rid of him solved the problem immediately, I suppose either by the introduction of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s renowned skill in such matters, or by the elimination of Grey Davis and his inept and/or corrupt energy management.
Perhaps you could explain how the change-over from Davis to Schwarzenegger did the trick.
– Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California
~
Bumper sticker seen in San Luis Obispo:
You Idiots!
==
“””””…..Gail Combs says:
December 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Craig Moore says:
December 11, 2012 at 10:12 am
Gail Combs, we’ll see. I believe the Zinc Air REdox approach was developed with DoD money at Lawrence Livermore….
…………………………
So, in light of 2016 to 2025 goverment mandates toward 54.5 MPG, where are the zinc-air batteries? I wish those who have them in development would start speaking up. Or are they under some insidious industry gag order?…….””””
Well Gail, I have some news for the EPA and the auto industry about that 54.5 MPG (where did they get that number ?)
I drive a perfectly ordinary four passenger conventional gasoline powered automobile; a 2012 Subaru Impreza Two Litre hatchback. It is rated at 33 MPG highway.
The car has an instantaneous reading MPG meter with a needle that shows whether currently above or below the average MPG (since last trip reset), plus a digital readout of Average MPG, Instantaneous MPG, Miles to fillup, overall average MPH.
I routinely drive at 60 MPH getting well over 50 MPG, and from about 30 MPH around town to 65 MPH on the highway, I can get 50 MPG. Sometimes going straight and level, I’m getting over 65 MPG at 60 MPH.
My average speed, since I got the car in early JUly, is 21 MPH. (doesn’t accrue stopped time; only moving time). And the overall average MPG for the almost 4,000 miles since day one, is 31.5 MPG.
Now I also have two Subaru Legacys with 2.5 litre engines. They are rated at 31MPG highway. I can routinely get over 45 MPG with either of those (2010, and 2011 models). Other family members drive those, getting 28.5 and 22.5 MPG since purchase; obviously one hot foot driver.
The problem is, when I am stopped, either for a traffic light, or a four way stop sign, or stop and go on the freeway because of the deliberately intended commuter lane SNAFUs my MPG goes to 3MPG for starting from a standing start. I might get it down to under 1 MPG if I wanted to do jack rabbit starts, but the meter won’t read that low.
So even if the auto makers get their fleet averages up to 100 or 200 MPG, by 2020 or whenever, it isn’t going to make one lick of difference to gasoline consumption, because traffic lights, and four way stop signs breed, and if you put one in, you soon have another bottleneck back up the road somewhere, and you put in another one.
EVERY car, should have its tachometer replaced with an instantaneous MPG meter. Drivers would be howling to get rid of the stupid commuter diamond lanes, four way stop signs, and the freeway ramp metering light, which launch cars into the right hand lane at 25 MPH from a standing start. These driving hazards, are the most ungreen energy wasting contrivances, that man has ever invented.
On a 750 mile round trip from Sunyvale CA to Glendale CA in Socal, I got an overall MPG of 41.8 with cruise set at 60 MPH, and a good headwind on the return trip (over the grapevine).
That was with two people going and one returning. The next such trip, with four going, and three returning, at 65 Cruise setting, I got 38.4 MPG. Both of those in 2012 Legacy.
Traffic control engineering in the USA, or at least in California, is at about 4-H club level in sophistication, efficiency, and common sense.
John F. Hultquist says:
December 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Mention is made of hydrogen tanks and using hydrogen for storage. Neither of these mean what they imply.
This is why they only model, never do studies based on real data. Kids playing civilisation would do a better study, same modelling tools and one can rule the world.
A similar study was done by University of New South Wales, however, they didn’t estimate the cost. A critique and cost estimate is here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
See Figure 6 for a comparison of capital cost, cost of electricity and CO2 abatement cost for four options.
A fifth scenario – with nuclear power – is added and compared here (see Figure 6 for the summary): http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf
Did anybody in school calculate how many windmills it will take to run the NYC subway?
cn
Gale: Blog posting are not published articles.
E.M.Smith: If you manage to get a hold of the article and have something interesting to say about let us know.
Chuck Nolan,
Without storage, windmills cannot power any houses, or subways or anything else. So the answer to your question is: an infinite number of windmills would be required. Same for solar.
Wind and solar are much more expensive than fossil fuels and nuclear even as a small percentage of the grid. Adding energy storage would make renewable energy even less economic.
See the links in my comment above to see how expensive is renewable energy.
Uh, You are certainly missing a number of points.
A:) Awards for technical achievements and breakthroughs do not make the technology feasible.
B:) Politicians and eco-crazies selecting a solution before it is proven is certainly a counter productive way to achieve that goal. Gail’s post listing the stimulus funded green tech bankruptcies is tax payer proof of that fallacy. Technology that is mass marketable is first proven by people who believe they will get payback for their investments. Higher institutions used to request grants must prove with replication the science they’ve mastered. Something that the climate and eco fear mongering crowd are scandalously avoiding; regrettably a bulk of that cost is honest science.
C:) If you sincerely believe that a particular technology will succeed, then I suggest you put your money where your keyboard is and immediately place all of your cash and assets into bankrolling that science. And no, I will not vote for a Congress or pres that plans to bail you out if it fails. Choose wisely. If you are one of the thousands of money sucking eco-parasites feeding off this climate CAGW scam, I believe there may be penance in your future; in a small room with regular meals, exercise periods, visitations and oh so friendly cell mates.
D:) Time and again, the best way to achieve technology breakthroughs is to assign a goal. Then allow the truly intelligent and honest scientists invent the way there. The moment someone chooses a technology as their preferred method to reach the goal, then the cause is lost.
E:) “Necessity is the mother of invention.” “Money is the root of all evil.” Both quotes highlight the problems rampant in the eco-insanity including the scam known as CAGW. Necessity is not there, desire by urban you-must-do-me-gooders is not a replacement for real necessity. Instead the abundant funding for the flimflammers has created a huge world of seriously dependent parasites. If Billions of dollars are involved, then the scammers are willing to incur Billions of dollars in costs to prevent the loss of their funding. After all, what do they have to lose; just everything if their funding is cut. They’ll say anything, claim anything, libel anybody, lie about almost everything and they’ll certainly cheat your Grandmother and your Grandchildren just to keep their bloat flowing.
F:) The so-called research above is not a technology breakthrough. It has not aided any technology breakthrough. It is a waste of money.
Uh, I support the removal of many dams and the restoration of rivers. I despise Mankinds decision that any old dam works in any situation. There are major issues with dams. One of which is that poorly planned dams (a major percentage of existing dams) block a river preventing the river from functioning as an estuary component that it is. Salmon and Striped Bass used to migrate up many East Coast rivers; dams in virtually all of them ended that. The issue is long and difficult. Yes, a dam can be designed so that a raceway built specifically for fish migration can offset the river blockage.
The next issue may be the biggest. Most dams have a limited life. Siltation reduces a dams holding capacity and many dams end up holding very little ‘storage’ of water after a few decades. The muddier the river, the shorter is a dam’s lifespan.
There are other issues which I will not pursue as many of those involve the petty politicans and developers who care less about anything but money, today. Can the issues all be solved? I sure hope so. At least solved so hydro-power dams represent firm long term investments with livable compromises. I would love to add hydro-power as a major future power supply concept.
@crosspatch
They laughed at me when I went to the local tank supplier and asked about LNG. They told me liquid propane was the only thing they’d supply. Sorry, I’ve gazed at those giant LNG tanks at the industries and wondered why I couldn’t install a smaller one. As another poster mentioned, LPG is usually the only choice if one is off the pipeline route.
atheok says:
“I support the removal of many dams and the restoration of rivers.”
Shall we outlaw beavers, then?
mbw:
At December 12, 2012 at 8:10 pm you assert
Don’t be silly! Of course they are!
If you choose to give more credence to other articles merely because they are published elsewhere then you demonstrate your gullibility.
Richard
I look at chart number 3 and cannot believe my eyes. Do renewable now produce 20% of electrical energy?
No. That is a lie.
It is maybe 20% of the energy we consume, but that is a different thing.
Only after reading the “renewable 2012 report” linked there I realised the big 20% there is burning dung in 3 world countries. This is the “renewable” basis.
It is not world electrical energy generation, it is “energy” = burning dung in cooking stoves – how E.M Smith above posted: E.M.Smith says:
December 11, 2012 at 12:03 am
That largest wedge of ‘renewables’ that is biomass heat will include the burning of forests and dung in the Third World. S
more then 3/4 of it.
The greatest service to humanity would be to replace it with burning fossil fuels or nuclear but as soon as possible.
And then on the modern biomass burning Matt has a good article here:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/britain%27s-mad-biomass-dash.aspx
“Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 ”
___________________________________
Did they remember that if they want electric vehicles in this grid, they would have to increase electrical production by 2.5 or 3 times.
As to pumped storage systems, they are great. Trouble is, all the best locations are in national parks, and the Greens will not allow anyone to build there. Catch-22. In Wales, this forced the Dinorwig plant to bury itself in a mountain. You can imagine the increased costs. This was a gold-plated government scheme, otherwise it would never have been built.
.
Never actually lived around beavers have you?
No dam built by beaver is even semi-permament, and most are temporary within a few years. When the beavers have cut down the growth near their lodges, they move on and rebuild elsewhere.
Beavers do not build dams across large streams and certainly not rivers. They prefer to set their dams across very small trubutaries which makes them a major contributor to upper estuary ecosystems. If their dam lasts long enough to silt in, it becomes a swamp with meadow edges and eventually a meadow. Both are essential to many migratory birds, aquatic and woods creatures.
All the beaver wants is water deep enough so their lodges and winter food stockpiles are safe from predators and accessible in all conditions. Yeah, they’ll chop down some impressive trees; but they much prefer younger easily dragged growths. In a large river, stream or a deep enough lake; that is all you’ll see, no dams just lodges, food piles, and lots of beaver sign.
A quick rule of thumb; beavers prefer not to build dams where spring or autumn floods will breach them. i.e. Unless they are forced to by overpopulation or mankinds draining and channeling the local drainage upper reaches. Loss of their dams causes the beaver to lose valuable food gathering time in dam repair or exposes them to predators. Neither are helpful towards beaver survival/success over the winter.
Personally, I’m very much in support of beavers, including harvesting their pelts. Understanding and supporting beavers place in the ecosystem allows us all to benefit.
Now about your rather absurd and very incorrect jibe? Are you against beavers?
“Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 ”
Who is talking this crap? first of all, In the UK a large energy bill for consumers to pay wealthy land owners has been issued. Meanwhile, wealthy landowners are arguing how confiscate land and sea around the UK. greedy people. Who’s talking crap?
Consumer Energy prices have become a hostage to wealthy UK land owners, who have extreme views.
Nordhaus (2010) Economic aspects of global warming in a post-Copenhagen environment http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/documents/Nordhaus_Copenhagen_2010_text.pdf says:
In other words, there isn’t a remote chance that carbon pricing is going to succeed in the real world.
Table 2 shows why. It has estimates of the costs and benefits of the Copenhagen Accord through 2055:
Abatement cost = $2,060 billion
Benefit (climate damages avoided) = $413 billion
No country can justify committing to a policy that will cost $5 for every $1 of benefit. And the compliance costs are not even included. They would be huge.
There is a much better way. The better way is the technological solution. It requires a focus on engineering. Unfortunately, Nordhaus and most other economists don’t understand this alternative approach. Their expertise and knowledge is economics, not engineering and technology. The economic solution is not practicable for the reasons he states in the quote above. But the technological solution most definitely is available.
Nuclear power could be far cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation if we removed the impediments. If cheaper than fossil fuels it could replace 50% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by around mid 21st Century.
We know that coal fired electricity generation is considered to be safe enough. That sets the benchmark for acceptability. We know that nuclear is about 700 times safer than coal http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html. Therefore, if we could get the message out, most people would act rationally. In that case, safety of nuclear power would not be a block to progress.
Bernard Cohen (1990) http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html explained that regulatory ratcheting increased the cost of nuclear power by about a factor of four by 1990. I expect regulatory ratcheting has increased the cost by at least a factor of two since 1990 for no improvement in safety. The regulatory ratcheting has given us for little or no improvement in safety compared with what would have been the case if nuclear had developed like other industries. On this basis, it is conceivable that the cost of nuclear could be reduced by up to a factor of eight (over time, of course)
We also know there are at least 43 small nuclear power plant designs in various stages of development from concept through to in-production. And we know the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing process takes about 5 to 10 years and they can handle only two or three designs at a time. The NRC is a massive thrombosis blocking progress on development and roll out of small modular nuclear power plants. No other industry has to get its designs approved by a government regulator.
Therefore, if we want to cut global CO2 emissions, we need to free up the development and roll-out of cheap, small nuclear power plants. We need to allow these to be developed in a commercial environment like other technologies. We need to allow the commercial sector to compete.
If we remove the impediments to nuclear, the cost of nuclear generation could be well below the cost of fossil fuel generation by 2030.
The US President could make this happen. The anti-nukes could facilitate the change in public opinion. The change in public opinion could be achieved in less than a decade if environmental NGO’s decided it was in their interest to lead the way on this.
Climate Etc. bloggers could start spreading the word. They could start informing others instead of continually repeating the anti nuclear rhetoric.
@ur momisugly Peter Lang: I like your post and support nuclear as a viable and intelligent source of energy.
I don’t want to cut CO2 emissions. CO2 is not in any way a pollutant. I am tired of the public being pandered to so much –I would never make it in politics. I am very pro nuclear, but would not carry the mantra that Nuclear cuts CO2 and therefore (fill in the blank, we save the world, curb AGW bla bla.)
Nuclear makes sense all by itself. It’s very inexpensive per unit of energy produced. It emits virtually no pollution into the atmosphere and is very safe no matter how you measure safety.
Mario Lento:
re your post at December 16, 2012 at 11:01 am.
Seconded!
Richard
Mario Lento and Richards Courtney,
Thank you for your supportive (mostly) comments. Being pragmatic, there are a large number of voters who are scared stiff we are damaging the climate. This is not going to go away. However, there is an economically rational way to make everyone happy, CAGW alarmists, climate realists and economic rationalists. It is what would come out of of ‘Robust analysis’, IMO.
If we make robust decisions, we can deal with the GHG issue, and others as well. So why don’t we put our effort into robust decision analysis (http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&theSitePK=469382&piPK=64165421&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000158349_20120906142854)?
What would a robust policy response give us?
1. ‘No regrets’ policies
2. economically beneficial (for all the world)
3. improved health (reduced toxic pollution) everywhere
4. greater energy security (for all the world)
5. fresh water supply
6. improved education for everyone (and improved communications for all)
7. reduced black carbon
8. reduced GHG emissions
If we agreed on points like this, we really don’t need to spend so much time and effort focusing on regulation, carbon pricing, emission targets and time tables and high cost mitigation policies that have low probability of achieving their aims. To achieve the 8 points listed, the policy response is pretty simple. It is to give the world more electricity. To do this we need to make electricity cheaper and cleaner. That is technically achievable. It is only blocked by ideological beliefs. So, if we do the robust analysis the conclusion will be clear. Most people reading this will know by now what it is, even if they are not yet ready to accept it!
The question then becomes: how do we re-educate those who hold ideological beliefs that are preventing progress?
Just an indication of the ‘youthful’ idealism you /we are up against…. Sustainability and saving the planet is the new ideology …
This was sent to me several years ago when my daughter worked at a London Development Institute, perhaps as a warning!
Guess where these people are now? These people ARE the intellectual elite of UK….I suspect that most are members of WWF.
Pachauri surely used them to get money for his Institute.