The Manhattan Contrarian Energy Storage Paper Has Arrived!

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

Today my long-awaited energy storage paper was officially published on the website of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Here is a link. The paper is 22 pages long in the form in which they have published it plus another few pages for an Executive Summary and table of contents. They have given it the title “The Energy Storage Conundrum.”

Most of the points made in the paper have been made previously on this blog in one form or another. However, there is a good amount of additional detail in the paper that has never appeared here. I’ll provide one example of that today, and more of same in coming days.

The main point of the paper is that an electrical grid powered mostly by intermittent generators like wind and sun requires full backup from some source; and if that source is to be stored energy, the amounts of storage required are truly staggering. When you do the simple arithmetic to calculate the storage requirements and the likely costs, it becomes obvious that the entire project is completely impractical and unaffordable. The activists and politicians pushing us toward this new energy system of wind/solar/storage are either being intentionally deceptive or totally incompetent.

If you follow the news on this subject at a general level, you might find this conclusion surprising. After all, there are frequent announcements that this or that jurisdiction has entered a contract to purchase some seemingly large amount of batteries for grid-level storage. The Report cites data from consultancy Wood Mackenzie as to announced plans or contracts for storage acquisition in all major European countries, and cites other reports as to announced plans from California and New York in the U.S. The title of the April 2022 Wood Mackenzie paper on Europe certainly gives the impression that these people have the situation under control and know what they are doing: “Europe’s Grid-scale Energy Storage Capacity Will Expand 20-fold by 2031.” Impressive!

But this is one of those subjects on which you have to look at the actual numbers to evaluate whether the plans make any sense. In this situation, you need to compare the amount of energy storage that would be required for full backup of an almost-entirely wind/solar grid (with fossil fuels excluded), to the actual quantity of grid-scale energy storage being acquired.

Consider the case of Germany, the country that has gone the farthest of any in the world down the road to “energy transition.” My Report presents two different calculations of the energy storage requirement for Germany in a world of a wind/solar grid and no fossil fuels allowed (both of which calculations have been previously covered on this blog). One of the calculations, by a guy named Roger Andrews, came to a requirement of approximately 25,000 GWh; and the other, by two authors named Ruhnau and Qvist, came to a higher figure of 56,000 GWh. The two use similar but not identical methodology, and somewhat different assumptions. Clearly there is a large range of uncertainty as to the actual requirement; but the two calculations cited give a reasonable range for the scope of the problem.

To give you an idea of just how much energy storage 25,000 (or 56,000) GWh is, here is a rendering (also from my Report) of a grid-scale battery storage facility under construction in Queensland, Australia by Vena Energy. The facility in the rendering is intended to provide 150 MWh of storage.

Remember that 150 MWh is only 0.15 of one GWh. In other words, it would take about 167,000 of these facilities to provide 25,000 GWh of storage, and about 373,000 of them to get to the 56,000 GWh in the larger estimate.

And against these projections of a storage requirement in the range of tens of thousands of GWh, what are Germany’s plans as presented in this “20-fold expansion” by 2031? From my Report:

In the case of Germany, Wood Mackenzie states that the planned energy storage capacity for 2031, following the 20-fold expansion, is 8.81GWh.

Rather than tens of thousands of GWh, it’s single digits. How does that stack up in percentage terms against the projected requirements?:

In other words, the amount of energy storage that Germany is planning for 2031 is between 0.016% and 0.036% of what it actually would need. This does not qualify as a serious effort to produce a system that might work.

The story is the same in the other jurisdictions covered in the Report. And remember, these are the jurisdictions that consider themselves the leaders and the vanguard in the transition to renewable energy. For example, New York, with an estimated storage requirement for a mainly-renewables grid of 10,000-15,000 GWh, is said by trade magazine Utility Dive to be “forging ahead” with plans to procure some 6 GW of grid storage (presumably translating into about 24 GWh). That would come to around 0.2% of what is needed. Unless, of course, New York simultaneously “forges ahead” with its plans to triple the demand on the grid by electrifying all automobiles and home heating; in that case the 24 GWh would be back down to less than 0.1% of the storage requirement.

California? The Report cites another article from Utility Dive stating that the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s power providers to collectively procure by 2026 some 10.5 GW (or 42.0 GWh) of lithium-ion batteries for grid-scale storage:

The additional 10.5 GW of lithium-ion storage capacity, translating to at most about 42 GWh, would take California all the way to about 0.17% of the energy storage it would need to fully back up a wind/solar generation system.

However bad you might think this situation is, it’s worse. Am I the only person who has ever made these simple calculations? I certainly have never seen them anywhere else.

I would be very happy to be proved wrong about any and all of this. All I say is that the proponents of this miraculous fantasy energy future owe it to the rest of us to build a working demonstration project before forcing us all to adopt their utopian scheme at ruinous cost, only to find out that it won’t work and can’t work.

Here’s what tells you all you need to know: not only is there no working demonstration project anywhere in the world of the wind/solar/storage energy system, but there is none under construction and none even proposed. Instead, the proponents’ idea is that your entire state or country is to be the guinea pig for their dreams.

For the full article click here.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.9 64 votes
Article Rating
270 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Wojick
December 4, 2022 6:36 am

You say “However bad you might think this situation is, it’s worse. Am I the only person who has ever made these simple calculations? I certainly have never seen them anywhere else.”

But you cite studies to this effect by Ken Gregory and by me. I started in 2019:
https://www.cfact.org/2019/04/26/batteries-cannot-make-renewables-reliable/

Still you are the best.

December 4, 2022 7:41 am

“The activists and politicians pushing us toward this new energy system of wind/solar/storage are either being intentionally deceptive or totally incompetent.”

I’m going with incompetent.

December 4, 2022 7:43 am

From the article: “The main point of the paper is that an electrical grid powered mostly by intermittent generators like wind and sun requires full backup from some source; and if that source is to be stored energy, the amounts of storage required are truly staggering. When you do the simple arithmetic to calculate the storage requirements and the likely costs, it becomes obvious that the entire project is completely impractical and unaffordable. The activists and politicians pushing us toward this new energy system of wind/solar/storage are either being intentionally deceptive or totally incompetent.”

That sums the situation up perfectly.

Net Zero is “completely impractical and unaffordable”. Continuing to travel down this road is insane.

James Michael McCanney
December 4, 2022 9:17 am

in 2010 I published a book “McCanney WING Generator – World Energy Project” with an addendum “The Myth of Alternative Energy”. This was the written statement based on many radio show interviews I had with the same title. I predicted everything that is happening now and showed that the 3 blade wind turbines and solar could never solve the world (nor even local) energy problems. It was clear at that time that GE Siemens Vesta along with the solar industry and others had created a product that was 1) economically not viable (without massive subsidies) and 2) simply did not and never would work. They were always pigs with lipstick. The companies just mentioned formed the AWEA and CWEA associations which was their subtle pass through to governments. They were marketing products that would never work (did they know this? either they were completely incompetent or liars). The entire scheme was to market a product that did not work, sell it as the savior of the world under the cloak of climate change, suck all the available money out of governments and you the unsuspecting public … and when everyone finally figured out that they did not and would not work, we would all rant and rave to get back to that good ole central power WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE GE AND SIEMENS CORE BUSINESS. Welcome to the real world.

December 4, 2022 9:59 am

Real life battery shock.

Toyota Launches Investigation After bZ4X Gets Only 134 Miles Of Range In Danish Test
The bZ4X has roughly twice as much claimed range as the figures achieved in the test.

https://insideevs.com/news/624778/toyota-investigation-bz4x-range/

georgewchilds
December 4, 2022 10:25 am

Carbon is the battery. Thank you God.

Editor
December 4, 2022 12:16 pm

The amount of storage needed is in a sense infinite. If you have just wind+solar generation plus storage, then the storage must be enough to cover the longest possible period of zero/low supply. But there is no such thing as a longest-possible period – there could always be another one that’s a bit longer. In reality, storage can be provided only for a certain period of zero/low supply, after which the lights go out.

Note the difference between this and fuel-based energy. A fuel-based system that is running short can just bring in some more fuel. A storage-based system can’t just make some more storage because there is by then nothing to store in it.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 4, 2022 3:51 pm

Plus there is the problem of charging (or recharging after a down period)—if all of the wind/PV has to be used for battery charging, there is nothing for the poor serfs who are plugged into the utility.

Sheer insanity.

December 4, 2022 12:35 pm

Thank you for this article and the other articles that you reference.
I have been looking for information on this issue for some time. It is fully amazing to me that this issue of the “Real” cost (LCOE) of a renewable energy grid and the enormous cost of Energy Storage does not get any press.
I installed 24, 330 watt solar panels and a Tesla Powerwall 2 battery on my home about 3 yrs ago. I have monitored the performance closely. I am very happy with the purchase, but the information on things that I did not know before was eye opening. Solar is very good for the individual, but an intermittant Solar / Wind system that goes much above 30% of the grid becomes very expensive and unreliable.
Lessons learned:

  1. There is a huge difference in seasonality for power output from the system. Winter is 1/3 of summer production.
  2. There is a very large difference for power output between cloudy/rainy days and sunny days, and the cloudy/rainy days can last for some weeks of time.
  3. California had some very bad wild fires that put particulate into the atmosphere during the time that I have had solar. During one episode, I had one day with zero power production and the week was barely 5% of normal.

To go forward thinking that the system can work by replacing gas, nuclear and coal with one to one substitution of wind and solar is a “fools errand”.

2021-11-26 Benson Drone Roof Full house DJI_0070 Sm Crp.jpg
Reply to  rwbenson66
December 5, 2022 3:30 am

“It is fully amazing to me that this issue of the “Real” cost (LCOE) of a renewable energy grid and the enormous cost of Energy Storage does not get any press.”

It doesn’t get any press because the press knows publicizing the impossibility of attaining Net Zero would kill the unreliable windmill and solar industries and would show that Western politicians are destroying their economies trying to rein in CO2 and it’s all for naught.

Reply to  rwbenson66
December 5, 2022 4:51 am

I have 3.3kW system with 2,5kWh battery. My yearly home consumption is around 4600kWh. System is capable to deliver around 3000kWh yearly.
Yes, you are right, there is no chance that solar can deliver 100% of energy, there are weeks during winter, where production is close to zero and no battery will help.
I see interesting correlation, for every next half of my energy needs, my investment will double.
System I have cost me around 3700Euro. To reach 3800kWh, system would cost me around 7000Euro.
2.5kWh battery is sweet spot for me, best value for money. It is actually sustainable fore every home, in spite of electric car, where 15kWh battery is poor and insufficient one.

December 4, 2022 4:36 pm

Good paper. I just read it all the way through. It jumped out at me, having recently looked at some seemingly affordable Levelized Cost of Storage figures from a NREL report, that the LCOS is flatly irrelevant to the question of a storage-supported grid otherwise supplied only by wind and solar. The author does a good job of pointing this out through the various scenarios. The LCOS is even more misleading than the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) figures by which our politicians and activists keep claiming “renewables” to be “cheaper than fossil fuels” with no accounting of the cost of intermittency/backup.

Beta Blocker
December 4, 2022 5:47 pm

Erik Magnuson: ” ….. The only way of achieving Net-Zero by 2050 is to start building nuclear plants NOW.”

Not a chance. Getting the nuclear construction industrial base in the United States back to where it was at the end of the 1980’s is a twenty year proposition, possibly longer.    

A good part of the problem is that the US industrial base as a whole isn’t nearly as diverse and robust as it was thirty years ago, much of it having been offshored to Asia.

As it stands today, we don’t have nearly enough of the nuclear construction management expertise, the skilled labor resources, and the nuclear qualified suppliers needed to get the ball rolling again on nuclear.

And even if we could instantly put ourselves back to the state of the industrial base as it existed in 1990, Net Zero is impossible unless America is willing to cut its total consumption of energy to a third or less of what it is today.       

sciguy54
December 4, 2022 5:58 pm

Just one real-world example with some real numbers:

Each day, there are over 800 million vehicle miles driven in California. A good economy figure for a passenger EV is 3 miles per kWh. Of course many cars get less, and heavier trucks much less, so lets assume an EV fleet average of 2 miles per kWH. If Half of the ICE vehicles switch to EV, then that is an additional 400 million EV miles every day, and over 200 million kWh, or 200,000 mWh of new electrical demand every day. In the typical hour the grid currently supplies about 20,000-30,000 mW on average against a maximum system capacity of about 40,000 mW. If all the EVs try to charge from Midnight to 5am, then this will add 40,000 mWh of demand for each of the 5 hours. ALL of this new supply would come from non-renewables, as renewables currently meet only 10-20 percent of the CURRENT demand during those hours.

Daily Vehicle Miles (page 150): https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/california-public-road-data/prd-2020-a11y.pdf

CA grid supply/demand charts here:
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

mohatdebos
December 4, 2022 6:46 pm

Ludington Michigan is home to one of the largest pumped storage facilities in the U.S. Unfortunately the ecoloons have kept the operators (Detroit Edison and Consumers Power) from expanding the facility.

Jon Le Sage
December 4, 2022 7:33 pm

Just imagine.. We get to replace all these batteries about every 10 years or so.. What a deal. No toxic environmental waste to see here… States like California mandate these insane regulations, which public utilities like PG & E say okay.. All the cost are passed on to the ratepayers. All this at the expense of deferred maintenance.. P G & E can’t afford to do both.. Make capital improvements and adequately maintain existing infrastructure.. Just look at what happened at the Moss Landing battery plant.. One module caught on fire and everything within 12 miles had to be shut down.. Wind and Solar doesn’t even look good on paper… Where is Don Quixote when we need him..

Jeff Alberts
December 5, 2022 12:12 pm

How much power does it take to cool all those batteries?