By Tim Benson
A 1-4 Percent In Renewable Generation Raises Electricity Prices By 11-17 Percent
An April 2019 working paper from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago shows renewable energy mandates (REMs), also known as renewable portfolio standards, are dramatically increasing retail electricity prices and serve as a very expensive way to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The authors of Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver? found that seven years after REMs are enacted, renewables’ share of electricity generation increases by only 1.8 percent. They also found REMs raise retail electricity prices by 11 percent. After 12 years and a 4.2 percent increase in renewables’ share of generation, these prices rise by 17 percent. Altogether, the total extra electricity costs of REMs to consumers in the states that have enacted an REM are $125.2 billion.
The study also reveals reducing carbon dioxide emissions through an REM costs between $130-$460 per ton of carbon dioxide abated. These increased costs are, at the low end, almost three times higher than the social cost of carbon estimated by the Interagency Working Group set up by the Obama administration, which is roughly $46 per ton for 2020. (It should be noted that whether there is a “social cost” to carbon dioxide emissions at all is debatable.)
Outside of these higher prices, REMs impose other costs. Since wind and solar are so intermittent (having respective capacity factors of just 34.6 and 25.7 percent) and must be backed up by conventional sources of electricity generation, most estimates “do not account for the additional costs necessary to supply electricity when they are not operating.”
The paper also notes “renewable power plants require ample physical space, are often geographically dispersed, and are frequently located away from population centers, all of which raises transmission costs above those of fossil fuel plants.” Further, “[REM-driven] increases in renewable energy penetration can also raise total energy system costs by prematurely displacing existing productive capacity, especially in a period of flat or declining electricity consumption. Adding new renewable installations, along with associated flexibly dispatchable capacity, to a mature grid infrastructure may create a glut of installed capacity that renders some existing baseload generation unnecessary. The costs of these ‘stranded assets’ do not disappear and are borne by some combination of distribution companies, generators, and ratepayers. Thus, the early retirement or decreased utilization of such plants can cause retail electricity rates to rise even while near zero marginal cost renewables are pushing down prices in the wholesale market.”
The findings of this study are not surprising and have been mirrored elsewhere. States with these mandates had electricity prices 26 percent higher than those without. The 29 states with renewable energy mandates (plus the District of Columbia) had average retail electricity prices of 11.93 cents per kilowatt hour (cents/kWh), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. On the other hand, the 21 states without renewable mandates had average retail electricity prices of only 9.38 cents/kWh.
In just 12 states, the total net cost of renewable mandates was $5.76 billion in 2016 and will rise to $8.8 billion in 2030, a 2016 study revealed. A 2014 study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found replacing conventional power with wind power raises electricity prices 50 percent and replacing conventional power with solar power triples electricity costs. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be around $5.7 trillion, and a 2019 brief from the Institute for Eenergy Research estimates that the idea of getting to 100 percent renewable generation is “nothing more than a myth,” and that attempting to do would be a “catastrophe” for our country.
“Intermittent wind and solar cannot stand on their own,” the brief concludes. “They must have some form of back-up power, from reliable coal, natural gas, nuclear units, storage capability from hydroelectric facilities, and/or batteries. Batteries of the size and scope needed for 100-percent renewables are unproven and not cost effective. Even if a 100 percent renewable future were feasible, the land requirements and costs of transitioning would be enormous and would require subsidies to ease the electricity price increases that would result.”
State legislators should not mandate the use of renewable sources in electricity generation. Such mandates raise energy costs and disproportionally harm low-income families. Instead of trying to increase renewable mandates, legislators should repeal them.
Tim Benson is a policy analyst in the Government Relations Department of
The Heartland Institute.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, this study has found a good proxy for the cost of Stupid.
Duh
This report won’t phase the pro CAGW/CACC crowd one bit. After all, they are already calling for multi TRILLION dollar solutions to their scam. I genuinely believe the entire scam is nothing but using cultural Marxism to bring about the complete collapse of Western Civilization as we know it.
That and that alone is their goal and they will stop at nothing until they achieve it.
This month Washington state is passing a RPS of 100% renewable electric grid by 2045. Rate increase estimates range from 1 cent to 2 cents per kWh (for example see https://www.lowcarbonprosperity.org/2019/03/27/analysis-of-100-clean-bill-sb-5116-cost-cap/ ). Assuming this could be achieved, the CO2 reduction would cost from $100 to $200 per MT CO2.
I have done other calculations that confirm this higher cost. Starting with real Wind costs (LCOE plus factors not considered by EIA, (See https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/ ) then wind will cost wholesale about 4 cents a kWh more than gas absent incentives. Since 75% of WA electric is already from dams, this will increase wholesale average prices by 1 cent per kWh.
So WA, and our governor, Jay Quixote Inslee, are about to punish WA residents for the glory of “leading on climate change action”.
Economics 101: Invest in an intermittent generator, either wind or solar. In order to guarantee reliable electricity, a backup generator must be on standby for when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. That backup generator could be diesel, gas, pumped hydro or batteries. Therefore at least double the investment and higher cost electricity . But no, the zealots keep claiming that “ruinables” are cheaper.
I believe this report misses the true purpose of renewable energy mandates, that being the opportunity to steal for extended periods of time,huge amounts of money, from a whole bunch of poor people ,using a government enforced monopoly.
The government control of utilities, opens the door to this kind of abuse.
Kleptocracy loves these “NGOs”.
Call me when the headline is ‘new investment in coal power plant causes massive drop in electricity prices’.
(ain’t going to happen. See also: nuclear)
I am guessing you don’t read the Chinese newspapers then Griff…..
He only reads the Guardian. And from his posts, it is clear that he doesn’t manage to understand what he has read.
I’m guessing that griff actually believes he’s said something intelligent.
Let’s see
Claim: Investment in renewables causes electricity prices to claim.
Response: Increasing investment in coal doesn’t make prices drop.
1) Coal is not currently the cheapest technology, nat gas is. So obviously switching the mix to be heavier in coal will cause a net increase in electricity costs.
2) Replacing coal with coal will have no impact on cost.
Call me when the headline is ‘renewable-crazy Germany has lower electricity prices than nuclear-powered France’.
(ain’t going to happen.)
Listen up. This is simply another report stating renewable energy supply is expensive.
That will have zero impact on the COGS. They believe no price is too high, to destroy capitalism via claiming to save the world.
They have allowed a 16 year old girl with issues, to become the poster child of Green politics?! That is how low they are prepared to go. The COGS have even managed to get a Tory government here in the UK, to declare a climate emergency. They have thwarted the most democratic mandate ever given in British history, by delaying Brexit and forcing a Tory PM to hold agreement talks with a Marxist Labour leader, designed to hold the UK subservient to EU hegemony and thus EU climate control laws.
The fact there is no emergency with climate, is not relevant to the left wing political class, They have invented it. It simply provides a control lever to be pulled, when the political class decide they wish to use it.
Another feature of what is happening, is the limiting of energy options now being woven into housing planning laws. here in the UK. Houses will not be allowed to connect up to the gas mains, if built after 2025. There will be no gas hobs, no gas central heating in those new builds. The only option will be electricity under state controlled “smart” meters. Apparently, according to the adverts, smart meters will ensure we have a world where polar bears can live??? Currently the most common form of space heating in the UK is gas. For those buying a new house post 2025 gas won’t be allowed on site. The rules on home electricity energy generation will be targeted next. Those who think they will buy a 7 kW generator for emergency use can forget it. Anything involving fossil fuel use will be regulated, to the point of banning it.
Proposals to ban wood-burners in our cities, are well under way, on the basis they cause particulate pollution.
There will be no personal energy choices available, no energy freedom. It will be, electricity or nothing.
We are living in increasingly dangerous and politically damaging times.
I agree Rod and I sense that a black cloud is gradually covering the country , extinguishing all opinion or activity that is not permitted by the prevailing political consensus. Until very recently England was a place where, in peace time, you could hold or discuss all sorts of opinions and if they did not correspond to the general view the worst that happened was that people would consider you eccentric.
Now there seems to be no avenue open if you do not agree with the climate change meme , and that “philosophy” is now being turned into political and economic action on the grounds of a fictional “climate emergency”. Britain , remember , has previous: DORA , the Defence of the Realm Act was used in wartime to suppress opinion and control economic activity and public gatherings. Something of that sort is no doubt forming in the minds of Corbyn , Milliband and McDonnell.
There is a feeling of helplessness and apprehension and no one has the power or courage to oppose the nonsense being proposed in Westminster. We should not have to live like this.
It is very worrying Mike.
Those of us who grew up in an open society free to express our opinion good or bad, know what is happening, to our freedom. Sadly the millenial’s think what they are involved in is normal. They consider received wisdom the same as wisdom. They will not engage in any debate on any subject that contradicts their brainwashed view of the world.
Consider a friend of mine who was a school inspector, a fully qualified chemist teaching chemistry before taking on the inspectors role. She refuses to engage in debate with me re the climate and our impacts or not, on it because as she put it. ” You know too many facts and I (a qualified chemist remember) don’t have the detailed knowledge you have to challenge your view”. The outcome of this short exchange being no debate is entered into and she is responsible for assessing schools and ensuring they conform to the accepted curriculum stating CO2 causes climate change.
The BBC stopped all dissenting/anti man man climate change voices having air time back in 2007. From then on you either, got with the program of CO2 is bad and mankind is destroying the planet via capitalism,enabled by fossil fuel energy. Or, you had to stop working at the or for the BBC. You were not allowed to have air time on the BBC. Ask David Bellamy OBE how his life ceased at the BBC, as soon as he said there is no climate crisis.
without MMT in Germany Hitler would have never risen to power and 60 million deaths could have been avoided.
Whenever you see the word “modern” in the name it is a fair bet something has been tried and failed. This time somehow it will be different.
Those who won’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
History is replete with examples of hyperinflation other than Weimar Germany. Argentina, North Korea, Venezuela, and Brazil are some recent examples. All caused by printing money to cover government expenditures and debt – exactly what MMT purports to do with no repercussions.
A genuine technology disrupter may be upon us. The problem with geothermal energy has always been the availability of steam. The Geysers has been depleting gradually. They are recharging it with treated wastewater. Finding both high geothermal gradient and groundwater in the sample place has been the limitation. If geothermal energy were abundant we would not need to burn coal or natural gas to generate electricity. Producing geothermal energy for the purpose of large scale power generation in hot dry conditions has been elusive without a closed loop. That may be about to change. For those versed in geothermal energy, look at GreenFire Energy’s web site. They use in-well closed loop technology using supercritical CO2 as the heat exchanger. If this works, the future of electrical power generation may belong to GreenFire Energy.