BY BRIAN LEYLAND AND TOM HARRIS
Joe Biden wants the electric grid of the United States to be powered solely by energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide by 2035. In the Unity Task Force plan that the former vice-president released with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the commitment is made that:
Within five years, we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 made-in-America wind turbines.
Overhauling the entire electric grid, which some call the world’s largest machine, and converting much of it to wind and solar power, is not just a momentous task. It is both dangerous and unbelievably expensive. The only reason Biden has been able to get away with such a preposterous plan is that many people actually believe that wind and solar power are cheaper than fossil fuel-powered generation. They conclude that a transition to a system supplied by wind and solar power will reduce consumer costs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead of blindly accepting the Biden/Sanders energy fantasy, the public should ask the obvious question: “If wind and solar are so cheap, then why do they still need direct and indirect subsidies?”
The fact is that they are not cheap at all once all the costs that they impose on the power system are taken into account. Let’s examine this more closely.
Wind and solar power are intermittent and unpredictable and must be backed up by existing or new power stations or storage facilities that can rapidly change output to compensate for the fluctuating supplies from wind and solar power. That usually means natural gas back-up stations. Even environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told the 2010 annual conference of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association:
For all of these big utility scale power plants, whether it’s wind or solar, everybody is looking at gas as the supplementary fuel. The plants that we’re building, the wind plants and the solar plants are [supported by] gas plants.
Other problems are the need for inertia (flywheel effect) that is required to stabilize the system frequency and for voltage support to stop the lights going dim. Both of these are provided by conventional generators but not by wind and solar power.
For various reasons, 1,000 kilowatts (kW) of wind or solar power seldom produces more than 800 kW. On average, wind produces about one-third of its theoretical energy output (measured in kilowatt-hours – kWh) and solar power less than one-sixth. As a result, much more installed capacity plus energy storage facilities are needed to match the output of a conventional 1,000 kW station. It is the cost of this extra capacity and energy storage that kills the economics of wind and solar power.
One way of establishing the real cost of wind and solar power is to compare the cost of supplying all the electricity needed by a system with no connections to other power systems. Let’s consider the cost of supplying all the electricity needed by a power system with a peak demand of 4,000 megawatts (MW) and an energy demand of 19,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which is typical of most power systems.
We start by assuming that five days of storage would be needed to cover a series of cloudy days in winter or five days of little wind. So, we need to calculate the costs associated with storage by batteries or by hydro-pumped storage (in which excess power is used to pump water into a reservoir which then drains through hydraulic turbines producing electricity when the primary system lacks sufficient power to supply the grid). One then discovers that the solar power option would need 16,000 MW of solar capacity + 9,000 MW of battery capacity and the all-in cost would be 38 US¢/kWh. The wind power option would need 7,000 MW of wind and 2,250 MW of storage capacity to give a final cost of 34¢/kWh.
For comparison, the typical North American cost for combined-cycle natural gas generation is 5¢/kWh.
The solar option would occupy about 650 square miles of land and the wind option would occupy over 1,600 square miles. The environmental effects cannot be ignored. In many countries, the pumped storage option is likely to be opposed by environmentalists and it may not be feasible anyway because of the lack of sites that can accommodate two large storage lakes a short distance apart with one several hundred meters above the other.
The reality is that Biden’s ambitions for large-scale, low-cost solar or wind power cannot possibly be achieved by 2035, or even 2050, because of the huge numbers of wind turbines and solar farms and new transmission capacity that would be needed, and the very high cost and the associated technical and environmental problems. At the moment, and after the expenditure of billions of dollars in subsidies, solar and wind power provide only 8% of U.S. electricity.
If governments persist, the inevitable result will be skyrocketing prices and regular blackouts. Hospitals, industry, and commerce would need to install hundreds of diesel generators to maintain operations.
The assumptions made to derive the real cost of supplying 4,000 MW of demand from wind or solar power are as follows:
- A 1,000 watt (W) solar cell has an average output of about 150 W, so 16,000 MW of solar power is needed to supply all the energy required by the 4,000 MW load and to compensate for the 25% losses in the energy storage system.
- As a 1,000 W solar cell seldom produces more than 800 W, the effective maximum output of 16,000 MW of solar is 13,000 MW.
- As the load on the power system can only absorb 4,000 MW, the storage system must be able to absorb the remaining 9,000 MW.
The storage capacity has to be able to provide 264 GWh needed in wintertime when there are likely to be five days of cloudy weather and the solar output is negligible. At the current $US200/kWh this amounts to over $US 50 billion. By way of comparison, the largest battery in the world at Hornsdale in Australia can store 130 MWh. Two thousand of them would be needed to store the 264,000 MWh needed for a reliable supply to the 4,000 MW load. This battery capacity is equivalent to all the batteries in all the electric cars in the world.
The conclusion is that about 25,000 MW of solar plus storage capacity is needed to supply the 4,000 MW demand! If batteries are used to provide five days of storage, the total cost is in the region of $70 billion, which explains the very high cost of providing a reliable supply from solar power.
Wind power that has an average output of 35% of its installed capacity is better but does not lead to a large reduction in price because the battery cost dominates.
Solar power with hydro-pumped storage is less expensive—an overall cost of 23¢/kWh, but still almost five-times the cost in the U.S. for combined-cycle natural gas generation. But hydro-pumped storage is impractical in most areas for the reason cited above.
From a greenhouse gas point of view, wind and solar power are horribly expensive. Carbon dioxide emissions are currently valued at about $30/tonne while calculations show that the carbon dioxide avoided by policy focused on wind and solar power would cost more than $1,400 per tonne.
When all the options are examined, the conclusion is that the best way to eliminate emissions of carbon dioxide from power generation is safe and reliable nuclear power supplemented by a relatively small amount of pumped storage. So, at least Biden’s support for nuclear and hydropower makes sense. But don’t expect ant-nuclear activists in the extreme left of the Democratic Party to allow this to happen.
The power disaster unfolding in California gives a good preview of what is in store for America as a whole if Biden succeeds in his goal of sweeping away fossil fuel-generated power and replacing it with wind and solar. Power outages are now commonplace in the Golden State, which suffered its first rolling blackouts in nearly 20 years last summer. Indeed, with 4,297 power outages between 2008 and 2017, California led the nation in this category (Texas was a distant second with 1,603).
Governor Newsom admitted that there was not enough wind power to compensate for the drop in solar power due to cloud cover and nightfall. The Los Angeles Times reported:
… gas-burning power plants that can fire up when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing have been shutting down in recent years, and California has largely failed to replace them …
The result is that California has fallen thousands of megawatts behind its needs.
Joe Biden said in his climate change plan:
Getting to a 100% clean energy economy is not only an obligation, it’s an opportunity. We should fully adopt a clean energy future, not just for all of us today, but for our children and grandchildren, so their tomorrow is healthier, safer, and more just.
If Biden actually does what he tells us he plans to do, life will be dismal indeed for our children and grandchildren. It will be a highly unjust future in which all those except the wealthy will lack the energy to be healthy and safe and will simply be left freezing in the dark.
The technical report and data to support our computations are available on the website of the senior author of this article at http://www.bryanleyland.co.nz/cost-of-wind-and-solar-power.html
________________________
Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE (rtd), MRSNZ, is a Power Systems engineer with more than 60 years’ experience in New Zealand and overseas. Tom Harris, M. Eng, is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the article: “The reality is that Biden’s ambitions for large-scale, low-cost solar or wind power cannot possibly be achieved by 2035, or even 2050”
That’s the bottom line.
The Loony Left requires the impossible.
Why look at Biden’s idiotic plans? It not as if the Chinese puppet will be president.
Brian and Tom, you missed out the cost of millions of acres of land to be tufted and glazed with renewables. Also the huge direct and indirect costs to the environment, slaughter of winged creatures, etc.
Do you know Denmark, which is one sixth the size of New Zealand, cut down a hundred km strip along the coastal boundary of their only national park/forest to stud it with windmills. Of course none of this is really the the point. The objective has been admitted to on many occasions by the people running the climate charade. I believe they are happy for us to occupy ourselves jumping all over the ‘takedown’ of what is simply a feint for something dark and awful.
.
Gary, the first thing that goes through my mind when windmills are mentioned is the horror of seeing these monstrosities spread all over the landscape, if the radical Democrats get their way.
Not in my back yard! 🙂
When I lived in CA, I remember the windmills on I-10 heading to Palm Springs littering the desert, and most of the time, even during Santa Anas, most of them were not turning.
People think THAT mess is “environmentally friendly”?
Its a disaster already and Democrats want to expand on it and it should not happen. For full disclosure or exposure there should be a look at who is invested in this scheme.
Mr. layman here.
Bottom line.
Batteries need something to recharge them … and batteries don’t last forever, whatever technology they are based on.
The biggie is: There is absolutely no need to depend on them.
What’s the excuse to build an infrastructure based on them?
To back up the proven unreliable to replace the proven reliable?
Why replace the proven reliable?
Flowers might, theoretically, bloom a week too early?
Who can prove that is not “Natural”?
Who can prove that anything “Man” has done is not “Natura/?
(PS Editing is not easier.)
More like a few hours to early.
The relative cost argument is easy to refute once the desire to reduce emissions is eliminated. If A is base load cost and B is renewables cost but B cannot exist without A as a backup , A+ B can never be equal to or less than A alone.
The cheapest and best path is to educate the people about the lack of danger that is climate change and that there is no need to try to reduce emissions.Reversing the global warming indoctrination would not only save future generations of gazillions in future energy costs but create a more efficient and reliable grid.
Renewables are not the problem. The belief system that supports them is.
If just 1/2 of Biden’s climate policies are enacted, it is easy to see how over 1 BILLION humans will die due to starvation, hypothermia and disease. It will lead to a massive reduction in food supplies et al and the people in poor countries will die by the millions, is this what the Liberals are intentionally doing now? Perhaps this is the “socialist way” as Scrooge said, “better they die to decrease the surplus population”.
Just look at the Covid response for a preview.
A+ B can never be equal to or less than A alone.
According to the latest “new” math, it can if you FEEL it strongly enough.
Yes. It is apparent that they are not just ‘plug and play’. Some planning is required, and major grid restructuring is necessary.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-are-the-blades-not-spinning-at-australias-biggest-wind-farm-79852/
link
I assume they are accounting for turning the entire vehicle fleet over to battery operation and replacing gas fired appliances with electric, including basic heat.
> “For various reasons, 1,000 kilowatts (kW) of wind or solar power seldom produces more than 800 kW.”
A 1kW solar system cannot produce 500kW average due to ummm night. Then there’s losses and clouds. Wait. My bad. You cannot model clouds so just ignore them.
I had another problem with his calculation. How does he come to 16 000 MW from 4 000 MW needed by all the capacity factors given?
You forgot to say either mindnumbingly stupid, or stunningly evil, choose one or both… This idea has been tried in several locales with inevitable failure. I give you Germany which has all but admitted outright failure, England where energy poverty is now rampant, California living in blackouts and denial that the energy they need comes from elsewhere. I particularly enjoyed the experiment in Ontario Canada where the government guilty of raising energy prices to stunning levels was shown the door in a massive defeat at the next election.
Lots of good stories in Australia today about the filing cost of wholesale electricity. We are told it is all due to the growing sources of “renewable” generation and that the old coal plants did not break down so often.
The wholesale price HAS fallen. However the retail price remains stubbornly high. The obvious conclusion is that the middle men are making more money. However, in this case, it is not the obvious but the almost invisible system costs.
The attached chart shows the system costs levied in the NEM by quarter. What has to be realised is that most of this costs fall on SA retailers and WDGs separate to the wholesale price settlements.
It is interesting to note that Q1 2020 was exceptional. That resulted from a 2 week outage of the interconnector. It effectively doubled the wholesale cost of electricity in the state but does not show up in the reported wholesale price. It demonstrates how a small part of a network can get a free ride from the reliable, high inertia generators connected to the network.
The AEMO report also indicates the value of a battery in a grid infested with WDGs. The attached shows the cost recovery for the HPR in South Australia. Note the high income during Q! when Sa was disconnected from the rest of the network and had to stand alone. AEMO actually took control of the battery to keep SA network stable but the battery made a lot of money – essentially doubling the price of electricity to consumers.
Unless you have a good grasp of why these costs are incurred then you do not understand the issues confronting high penetration of WGDs on a network.
Another aspect that often gets little mention when handling ever increasing amounts of intermittent generation is the curtailment factor. As more WDGs connect, they all tend to produce at the same time so it is inevitable that they will need to reduce output due to insufficient demand.
The coal generators have got smarter about forcing grid scale WDGs into curtailment so it is now a common feature and the volume of curtailment is being estimated in the Australian NEM per attached.
More reason to move to Texas.
Texas and its ERCOT-run grid will tell the Biden Admin and its diktats to go take a FFL. And without Congress’s legislative approval, Texas will likely prevail in the Courts in that fight.
Posted previously on wattsup:
In 2002 Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton U and Allan MacRae TOLD YOU SO 18 YEARS AGO. We published in 2002:
1. “CLIMATE SCIENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY OF CATASTROPHIC HUMAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”
See Michael Shellenberger’s 2020 confession “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare”.
2. “THE ULTIMATE AGENDA OF PRO-KYOTO ADVOCATES IS TO ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUELS, BUT THIS WOULD RESULT IN A CATASTROPHIC SHORTFALL IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY
KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”
See Michael Moore’s 2020 film “Planet of the Humans”.
The green objective is to destroy prosperity and move the USA into a planned economy – with a few rich at the top looking down on the many poor peasants. That model now describes most of the countries in the world. Europe and Canada are far down that “Poverty Road to Venezuela”, and the USA will follow if Biden and the Demo-Marxists are elected.
Our above 2002 major conclusions that contradict the global warming and green-energy frauds were made in 2002, based on fundamental laws of physics, which do not change in 18 years – or 18,000 years.
The Big Picture:
The global warming / climate change scam, the Covid-19 full-Gulag lockdown scam, the specious linkage of these two huge frauds, and the leftists’ “Final Solution”, the
Marxist “Great Reset” – aka “Live like a Chinese peasant”.
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM PRESENTS: THE GREAT RESET— “YOU’LL OWN NOTHING, AND YOU’LL BE HAPPY.”
The World Economic Forum’s twitter account deleted the tweet in which this video was originally embedded in 2016.
The Alberta government, like so many others, has been duped and has adopted a failed
strategy of trying to appease leftist fraudsters who are intent on destroying our free society. Alberta government policies have caused more than a decade of strategic and economic failure.
Watch as Sky News Australia exposes the “Great Reset”, the wild Marxist “Final Solution” from the World Economic Forum (WEF), as espoused by its founder Klaus Schwab (aka “Doctor Evil”) and a host of bizarre villains straight out of an Austin Powers film.
(Schwab starts at 5:05 of the video)
Really, good people, it is long past time that you realized you have been duped, for decades. We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
Maurice Newman of The Spectator Australia nails it:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/10/dangerous-elites-planning-the-great-reset/
[excerpts]
A lasting side-effect of Covid-19 is the universal growth of state power.
Despite global death rates peaking last April and immunity building even
without a vaccine, authoritarian leaders are clinging to their recently
acquired powers. No doubt they view individual freedom as an optional extra not an inalienable right and want their new powers to become a normal part of
governing.
…
Already, Professor Schwab and his colleagues have started mobilising vast networks of left-wing activists. Indeed, the 2021 annual summit will include members of the WEF’s thousands strong Global Shapers Community, youth crusaders located in 400
cities across the planet. As Schwab says, ‘The changes we have already seen in
response to Covid-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations
is possible. This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism’. Those who scoffed at claims that climate change was a stalking horse for a new world order, should think again. That reality is now in full view.
Come January 2021, Professor Schwab’s Great Reset campaign will begin in earnest. Should his ideological opponent, US President Donald Trump, not be re-elected, a major obstacle to achieving his societal and economic revamp will be gone. Schwab is determined that a return to a post-Covid business-as-usual world ‘will not happen’.
Indeed, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and its various
agencies will use the current depressed economic environment, masked as it is by endless government support, together with renewed forecasts of apocalyptic climate change, to push for a ‘more inclusive social contract’, a decarbonised economy and a ‘control without ownership’ business sector, where companies ‘serve all stakeholders not just shareholders’.
Intense pressure will be applied to parliaments everywhere to pass enabling laws and to abdicate more responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats in
global institutions. Crony capitalism is anathema to genuine market economies and, giving more leverage to those who encourage it is simply fascistic. No surprise that some of the organisations behind the ‘stakeholder capitalism’ push are accused of corruption, sexual harassment, cover ups and a general abuse of power. Still, the WEF’s oligarchy derives much of its extraordinary influence and wealth from these same institutions and no one should doubt their Big Brother intentions.
Indeed, anyone who fears big government and values free speech, freedom
to choose and property rights, should be terrified. Yet, so far, political, business and church leaders, along with the mainstream media, seem oblivious to the threat and turn blind eyes to the dictatorial abuses already perpetrated in the name of the pandemic. There is even bi-partisan support for policies which, two decades ago, would have been considered politically and economically unthinkable.
Stripped of the propaganda, the Great Reset is not new. It’s another fascist experiment being pushed by controlling elitists. Economic growth and social mobility must be subordinate to the collective. Connections will be institutionalised and privilege perpetuated. History demonstrates the children
of the elites will receive preferential access to higher education and elite
positions. ‘Inclusion’ and ‘fairness’? Forget it. Think inequality, serfdom and misery.
************************************
We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
Regards, Allan MacRae
OK children, let’s not PANIC like we did earlier this year. The last full-Gulag Lockdown for Covid-19 was (at best) a really stupid error – but more likely a global scam led by the WHO.
THE LATEST COVID VARIANT IS CAUSING ‘MAYHEM’
More nations are shutting down travel from the UK
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Dec 21, 2020
https://www.newser.com/story/300301/heres-the-latest-on-out-of-control-covid-variant.html
Maurice Newman of The Spectator Australia nails it:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/10/dangerous-elites-planning-the-great-reset/
[excerpts]
A lasting side-effect of Covid-19 is the universal growth of state power. Despite global death rates peaking last April and immunity building even without a vaccine, authoritarian leaders are clinging to their recently acquired powers. No doubt they view individual freedom as an optional extra not an inalienable right and want their new powers to become a normal part of governing.
…
Already, Professor Schwab and his colleagues have started mobilising vast networks of left-wing activists. Indeed, the 2021 annual summit will include members of the WEF’s thousands strong Global Shapers Community, youth crusaders located in 400 cities across the planet. As Schwab says, ‘The changes we have already seen in response to Covid-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible. This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism’. Those who scoffed at claims that climate change was a stalking horse for a new world order, should think again. That reality is now in full view.
Come January 2021, Professor Schwab’s Great Reset campaign will begin in earnest. Should his ideological opponent, US President Donald Trump, not be re-elected, a major obstacle to achieving his societal and economic revamp will be gone. Schwab is determined that a return to a post-Covid business-as-usual world ‘will not happen’.
Indeed, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and its various agencies will use the current depressed economic environment, masked as it is by endless government support, together with renewed forecasts of apocalyptic climate change, to push for a ‘more inclusive social contract’, a decarbonised economy and a ‘control without ownership’ business sector, where companies ‘serve all stakeholders not just shareholders’.
Intense pressure will be applied to parliaments everywhere to pass enabling laws and to abdicate more responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats in global institutions. Crony capitalism is anathema to genuine market economies and, giving more leverage to those who encourage it is simply fascistic. No surprise that some of the organisations behind the ‘stakeholder capitalism’ push are accused of corruption, sexual harassment, cover ups and a general abuse of power. Still, the WEF’s oligarchy derives much of its extraordinary influence and wealth from these same institutions and no one should doubt their Big Brother intentions.
Indeed, anyone who fears big government and values free speech, freedom to choose and property rights, should be terrified. Yet, so far, political, business and church leaders, along with the mainstream media, seem oblivious to the threat and turn blind eyes to the dictatorial abuses already perpetrated in the name of the pandemic. There is even bi-partisan support for policies which, two decades ago, would have been considered politically and economically unthinkable.
Stripped of the propaganda, the Great Reset is not new. It’s another fascist experiment being pushed by controlling elitists. Economic growth and social mobility must be subordinate to the collective. Connections will be institutionalised and privilege perpetuated. History demonstrates the children of the elites will receive preferential access to higher education and elite positions. ‘Inclusion’ and ‘fairness’? Forget it. Think inequality, serfdom and misery.
************************************
Regards, Allan MacRae
Moderator – please delete this double-post.
For a few hours after you post, you have the ability to go back and edit a post. Perhaps you can delete everything and replace it with a “Double Post” comment.
It’s been many months now since we were told orbiting solar arrays would take over the electricity market. What happened? Did the ad dollars run dry?
The biggest problem I have with this analysis is that no consideration was given to how much over-generation margin is needed to ensure that the storage systems can be recharged in a reasonable time frame while still also supplying enough for peak demand. Sure, sometimes you will be lucky and can use off-peak generation to recharge partially depleted storage systems, however when you more deeply deplete them, you need to have overcapacity to recharge them before the next big draw-down event – all the while providing for current demand. Even just using back-of-the-envelope calculations you need at least 2x overcapacity on the generation side, and for real grid security, probably 3x or 4x. Now just how economic does your “renewables” + storage solution sound?