From Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
by Planning Engineer
There seems to be a belief that increasing the level of wind and solar projects will make subsequent progress with these resources easier. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Increasing penetration levels of wind and solar is like a Sisyphean task, except that it is worse. The challenge may be better understood as akin to pushing a huge rock which is getting heavier and heavier, up a hill of a steeper and steeper slope while the ground below gets slicker and more unstable. The problems associated with increased penetration swamp any potential benefits that might be achieved through economies of scale.
The bulk power system has traditionally been strong and very robust. There are generally not significant problems associated with adding small system elements (small amounts of wind and solar) which lean on the system, rather than support it. The system has a limited ability to absorb wind and solar power and can use it to displace generation which relies on costly fuels. But at higher penetration levels this ability is greatly reduced and the economics can degrade and even reverse. Listed below are some reasons why increasing the penetration levels of renewables will lead to rapidly increasing costs as well as rapidly decreasing reliability.
1)Wind and solar do not readily supply essential reliability services. Conventional generation has characteristics that support the stability and operation of the grid. They have inertial mass and spin in synchronism with the wave forms powering the system while readily providing voltage and frequency support. As wind and solar make up a larger percentage of the generation resource base we see an erosion of these desirable characteristics. Some argue that electronic emulation can serve to compensate for the loss of these characteristics but it is costly and the results are inferior. Previous writings going into detail on this topic include: https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/07/transmission-planning-wind-and-solar/ https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/06/renewables-and-grid-reliability/
2)Wind and solar are intermittent resources and their availability/output often does not match or support system needs. While there is hope for battery technology, current goals are modest. Other resources must compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar. The greater the percentage of wind and solar the greater the challenge and cost for backup. Previous writings on this topic include:
- https://judithcurry.com/2014/12/11/all-megawatts-are-not-equal/
- https://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/
3) The success of wind and solar installations is highly location specific. You can pull up maps showing the suitability and appropriateness of various locations for both wind and solar power. Other land use considerations make locations more or less suitable for wind and solar as well. Current effort to increase wind and solar make use of the most optimal sites. Remaining sites are less optimal. As penetration levels increase above current levels the suitability of potential sites will decrease. The posting below cowritten with Rud Istavan provides some discussion of locational problems.
4) Wind and solar depend on materials which must be mined and their ability may be limited. Greatly increasing solar and wind production will likely increase costs and create supply problems. European wind power is already seeing a fight over scarce materials.
5)As wind and solar generation increase penetration it will become more and more challenging for other resources to subsidize their expansion. It’s one thing to subsidize a small component of the generation mix, another thing entirely to subsidize the major components.
- https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/21/what-should-renewables-pay-for-grid-service/
- https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/clean-air-who-pays/
6)It takes a lot of energy to build wind and solar facilities. Their operation and support consume a lot of energy. Many see that it is doubtful that such facilities can support themselves, serve load and provide enough energy to build replacement facilities of the same sort. Additionally, if electric vehicles are thrown in, the problem is further magnified. The “green” plan to eliminate gas appliances and added losses from increased battery deployment will not help either. There are a class of concerns focusing on all the energy and resources consumed by wind and solar resources. This is referred to as the energy density or power density problem. Here are a couple links (here, here, here and here) discussing these type concerns. These concerns have been outside my area of experience. I hope that readers may add more references in the comments.
7)Wind and solar make the study, control and operation of the power system more complicated and uncertain. These resources are intermittent and more unpredictable for operators to contend with. To maintain stability good modeling is imperative. Detailed models are run involving complex differential equations. Planners can force builders of large power plants to provide pretty good data on the plant impacts. Getting good data for dispersed projects with many small elements which might change during a project and after installation is much more challenging. Lastly, system operators and planners have years of experience with large rotating machines, not as much with wind and solar.
8)Widespread deployment of wind and solar would require that power be transmitted across great distances (or you would need an unrealistic and incredible amount of battery storage.) Getting wind’s power from the plains to the population centers involves long transmission lines. Green advocates argue that imbalances between load and generation from solar and wind resources can be overcome by drawing on resources from a broader geographical area. This requires even greater needs for long power lines and a robust grid. Wind and solar produce DC power which must be converted, with the help of the grid, to AC power. Edison and Tesla had a battle years ago over AC and DC power. Tesla won because to transmit power a long distance you need to use an alternating current system. As noted in item 1, solar and wind do not provide sufficient elements like inertia and vars for such a system to remain stable. (Side note-A high voltage DC line can transmit power great distances with lower losses. However, to utilize a high voltage DC line it is imperative to have a strong AC system receiving the power. The system must be robust such that the power can be converted from DC to AC. High voltage DC lines will not be the savior of a wind and solar based system.) While high levels of wind and solar penetration require a robust grid, their greater presence reduces the capability of the grid.
The above is a formidable list of challenges. How might they be overcome? Not by economies of scale from increased wind and solar production. First off, it’s hard to imagine that any economies of scale would allow these resources to leap the formidable challenges described above. Secondly, it does not appear that significant improvements in economies of scale are to be expected. My perusal of the topic shows that attempts to find economies of scale have all failed. Building more and more smaller units likely will not provide greater economies of scale due to increased material costs. Larger wind and solar facilities incur a class of costs not seen by smaller facilities. Promoters of wind and solar argue instead that smaller local projects provide more benefits than might be obtained from larger facilities.
Could nuclear energy be a piece of a lower carbon emission future? Most certainly. None of the above concerns apply to nuclear power. We could see cheaper costs from standardized nuclear facilities and reasonable regulations. Hydro too works well with the power system. Unfortunately, there are negligible to no potential locations to expand hydro generation. (Note-pumped storage is an option for storing energy, but not producing additional net energy).
It is way too soon to be envisioning a 100% renewable future with significant contributions from current wind and solar capabilities. It is not a good strategy to support current “green” technologies and retire and prohibit conventional generation hoping that a miracle will occur when we need it. Perhaps with the extensive deployment of nuclear power, carbon capture and other technologies we might be able to approach a zero-carbon grid. At best, current wind and solar technologies will play at most a small part in such a plan.
This is the first post in a series on The Penetration Problem
Part 1 Wind and Solar: The More You Do, The Harder it Gets
Part 2 Will the Inflation Reduction Act Cause a Blackout?
Meanwhile:
“Bloomberg will invest $85M to fight petrochemical companies expanding into Texas, Louisiana”
The problem with this boiler plate concession to the renewable energy mafia, is that it simply isn’t true.
The only way it could be true, is if the power companies are able to ramp down fossil fuel power plants to compensate for the increase in renewable power.
This is not possible because even small changes in power levels for fossil fuel plants takes minutes, while wind and solar can and do change power levels in a matter of seconds.
Flora, fauna, people, or Green tech. The Green blight factor is self-limiting.
“But at higher penetration levels this ability is greatly reduced and the economics can degrade and even reverse.”
There is a number 8) reason which I’ve mentioned before without getting much response. Let’s take a fully exploited windy place, say a mountain pass known to be reliably windy. Consider, that wind going through the pass does so because a low pressure system on the other side demands the air flow. The wind farm acts as a partial dam or baffle resisting the flow. Since the low pressure area down wind demands the full airflow, it therefore draws wind from another direction(s) to make up the deficit. The air in the pass, is also pushed up and over the blades of the turbines. Offshore farms are even easier to make an end-run around.
Better deployment of the the turbines is possible. In the case of the farm in the pass, successive tiers of turbines going downwind should be taller to exploit the compressed (enriched) air flow above the preceding tiers. Offshore, turbines tiers should be deployed in arcs concave to the wind to capture more power from the otherwise the end-run breezes.
When moving huge amounts of DC power around, far and away the best way to do it, the problem with ‘inertia’ and ‘vars’ (reactive components) and horrible things like motors and fluorescent tubes is easily solved:
Because, what I might refer to as ‘Solid State Inverters cannot handle the vars and sudden short circuits caused by motors starting up, transformers being switched on etc etc. For safety reasons, they have to have a stable grid frequency and voltage to ‘latch on to’ in order to work – they need the synchronisation both with the grid and with their peers elsewhere on the grid.
And when large motors are switched on, they punch holes in the voltage.
So simple to get round it and build a solid grid that is both volatge and frequency stable:
Use ‘synchronous inverters’ = basically a large DC motor driving an alternator.
That way you get the voltage conversion from whatever DC you’re using and the frequency stability of the large rotating machine.
= a machine that can ride through short circuits and provide the reactive power (when current and voltage are no longer in phase with each other) as created by (typically) inductive loads like motors, tubes and transformers.
The technology is all there and the large alternators are being scrapped.
Find them in (now) redundant coal fired power stations.
Simply replace the steam turbine with a DC motor and feed it your DC power.
And the job’s a gud’un
edit to PS
Find the motors in now redundant steel works, where they typically powered the rollers that flattened and moulded the steel into whatever shape or profile was needed
Toss this in –
“Bad news for the US Electric Vehicle industry”
“The Department of Labor plans to add lithium-ion batteries to a list of products whose components are known to be made using child or forced labour. This means that there is not a single EV assembled in the U.S. today that would fully qualify for the $7,500 per unit subsidy contained in the IRA. That’s a huge financial hit to Ford, GM, Toyota and other U.S. auto-assemblers if it is not changed – OR – if the U.S. doesn’t somehow develop its own mining and processing industries for these critical minerals, an effort that would take decades and hundreds of billions more dollars than are contained in the Inflation Reduction Act.”
https://blackmon.substack.com/p/thursdays-energy-absurdity-politico?r=5c3gj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Now you’ve passed it things you get to read!
There ya go – no cars for the plebs. No doubt the elites will find a workaround.
Special arrangement for internal combustion engine vehicles permits for woke followers and believers?
Here is a tidbit from today’s news cycle “A top Florida state official warned Thursday that firefighters have battled a number of fires caused by EVs waterlogged from Hurricane Ian.”. from Fox News.
Oops. Doubt the insurance will pay out either. This could get very expensive.
Very nice report, short, to the point and few technical terms, this needs wide distribution.
Solar produces DC, Wind AC
On large wind turbines (above 100-150 kW) the voltage (tension) generated by the turbine is usually 690 V three-phase alternating current (AC).
Thank you, Judith. Excellent article. Here are my contributions.
Not many people understand how the electric grid works and why renewables are a problem for it. This explains it.
The “New Energy Economy”: An Exercise in Magical Thinking
Executive Summary
https://bit.ly/3hwTGgb
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible
This concerns the mind numbing costs of renewables and the negligible effects on CO2.
Shocking statements by Dominion Energy to the VA State Corporation Commission
https://bit.ly/2CNJwbu
May 26th, 2020
This demonstrates how adding unreliable, intermittent renewable to a reliable power grid even makes clean nuclear dirty.
Duke Energy application points finger at solar for increased pollution
https://nsjonline.com/article/2019/08/duke-energy-application-points-finger-at-solar-for-increased-pollution/
…“After committing $2 billion in tax credits, and more than $1 billion in electricity overpayments for solar power, we now learn from Duke that nitrogen oxides have actually increased, and that CO2 may be headed in the wrong direction,”
…“Renewable energy sounds good, but it performs terribly. If you want electricity available when you need it, you don’t want intermittent, unreliable, renewable energy,” Kish said. “It’s like a cancer on an efficient grid, with its ups-and-downs forcing other sources to pick up the slack in the most inefficient ways, which, in some cases, are more polluting.”
I would appreciate comments on the accuracy of my argument:
No matter how cheap the cost of the generation of electricity by the renewables wind and solar, the use of wind and solar power will result in an increase in our electrical costs. The reason is because wind and solar power generation are unreliable and must be backed up 100 percent by an on-demand system. The cost of the on-demand power generation and transmission lines must be paid for regardless of the amount of renewable power used. If a power company needs $100 million to pay for the fixed costs of the generation facilities and transmission lines, it needs $100 million in revenue regardless of the percentage of power generated by renewables. If renewables generate 30 percent of the power, rates for the electricity provided by the on-demand power generation must go up, because the fixed costs of $100 million must be paid for. Renewables can only add to the capital costs (and expense) of generating electricity because the renewables add nothing to the on-demand supply of power and thus their capital costs are an added burden on the cost structure. While wind a solar may be “free”, the capital costs (and maintenance costs) are not and the fixed costs of the on-demand system must also be fully covered.
The only way that the renewables make economic sense is if they produce both enough electricity and produce it so cheaply that they can pay for their own capital costs plus the capital cost of the on-demand plants. Thus if renewables generate 30% of the power, their revenue must cover 30% of the fixed costs of the on-demand generation as well as their own capital costs.
This is not just theoretical. We have a real world example in Germany which has gone in a big way in the use of wind and solar to power their grid. Prices have not declined with the increased use of renewables and in fact are approximately three times what they are in the United States (13 cents/KWh (cheapest US) vs. 44 cents per KWh (Germany)). This resultant higher price level is based on the inherent economics of wind and solar power. Germany’s higher costs are not due to them not “doing it right” and in fact are due to the inherent unreliability of solar and wind.
In very broad terms, the three components of delivering electricity to a customer – power plant, fuel and transmission – each costs approximately a third of the total cost. This means that, broadly speaking, two-thirds of the costs of providing power are fixed and must be paid for whether or not the power plant is used. If a homeowner has solar panels on his roof and is able to generate all of the power he needs during the day, the full capital costs of the on demand generating plant and transmission lines must still be paid for. One might argue that the electricity generated by the solar panel allowed the power company to avoid the fuel costs, but that is not helpful because unless the power company generates and sells electricity it is unable to generate the revenue to pay for the $100 million in fixed costs. Unless the homeowner is completely “off the grid” and is never part of the power company’s demand load, solar power only adds to the total cost structure, and hence adds to the total cost of the electrical power system. The homeowner may pay less, but the system’s costs are higher.
One way or another, everyone will pay, even those who are off grid. Payment will be made in the form of general inflation caused by higher prices for energy, the costs of direct and indirect renewable energy subsidies, and the economic opportunity costs of a reduced supply of electricity over what we enjoy now.
This posting comments on how backup service could be charged in the US. There are different perspectives on what might be fair but renewable activists mostly push for schemes outside that boundary where renewable impose additional,costs they don’t pay for. Not a big deal at small penetration levels, but unsustainable at large levels.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/21/what-should-renewables-pay-for-grid-service/
Take out the wind and solar and this may be the greatest title of all time.