Skip to main content

The Drawbacks of a Renewable Grid

Matt Wald
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

California researchers have sketched out an American energy system that they say can be powered almost entirely by wind, water and sunlight, by 2050. It’s an interesting thought experiment, with some valid insights, but it’s a little like hopping from New York to California on one foot. Even if you could do it, would you really want to?

The paper, summarized here, is not just a recipe for just powering the electric system, but for converting everything that uses oil or natural gas to run on electricity instead – including ships, cars and even airplanes. The airplanes would fly on hydrogen derived from water molecules split with electricity.

Electrification is almost always a good idea, because it improves efficiency, cuts pollution, and can cut geopolitical risk. We are in the early stages (at least, we hope it’s the early stages) of an effort to convert part of the transportation sector to electricity. President Obama once predicted a million electric cars by 2015.

A few years ago, when oil was $140 a barrel, advocates of multi-billion dollar offshore wind farm complex also suggested that their source could be used to displace heating oil used to keep New England homes warm in winter.

But a reality check is in order. The clock is ticking towards 2050 and those things haven’t happened. The wind farm idea mostly went away when the prices of oil and natural gas oil crashed, and the wholesale price of electricity went with it. Electric cars didn’t go away but we have only about 300,000 of them, counting plug-in hybrids. Those are still advancing, although they have lost some of their consumer appeal with the lower price of gasoline.

And we’re all for de-carbonizing the electric system, because the grid can be transformed safely much faster than Boeing or the Federal Aviation Administration can transform the airline system to anything approaching carbon-free.

The whole system can change, say the authors, from Stanford and Berkeley; what’s needed, they say, is political will. It’s worth pointing out that much more modest steps, like building wind machines off Cape Cod, or building a network of long-distance direct current transmission lines, have faced very stiff political opposition.

One problem the authors make clear is the difference between energy and power – or kilowatt-hours and kilowatts. Getting enough renewable energy is the easy part; getting it when you need it is something else. That makes their analysis more sophisticated than those by other fans of solar and wind. But to solve the problem, they describe storing some of the energy by methods that are not now in commercial use, like heating up soil.

In fact, the storage issues are quite formidable partly because the resource varies by season. For those of us who don’t live on the equator, if we install enough solar cells to meet winter demand, we’ll have a wasteful surplus in summer.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently published a detailed analysis called The Future of Solar Energy, which makes a related point. Solar is so time-limited that if the system has too much of it, solar production will push the market price of electricity way down at noontime (see image below). Wind already cannibalizes other carbon-free generating capacity in some places at night, because it produces most when demand is lowest.

Penetration grows, net peak load gradually decreases, narrows, and shifts.
Storing mid-day energy to cook my evening meal, or night-time energy to heat my morning coffee, is by no means impossible. But with the batteries now available, the ratio of the price of the storage container to the price of the contents is wildly unfavorable, like storing tap water in a solid gold cup. A kilowatt-hour retails for around 11 cents, and at a windy midnight may be far less on the wholesale grid, but the battery needed to store that kilowatt-hour it is in the range of $400. Season-to-season storage – the electric equivalent of a wood pile behind the house – is not a near-term prospect.

Experts with a broader view of energy, like the Electric Power Research Institute, a non-profit utility consortium, generally call for a more balanced mix of generation, as in this study, which has been intermittently updated.

The authors don’t make clear what they don’t like about nuclear power, but we can intuit that they don’t like nuclear fuel accumulating at reactors around the country, with no clear plan for burial. Neither do we. But we suspect that we’ll see the political will to move forward with a federal program to dispose of nuclear waste before we see a consensus to radically convert our electricity and energy systems.

Comments

Leslie Corrice said…
Outstanding summary of the myriad of problems with an all-rewable generation system I especially like the analogy of hopping cross-country on one leg. Good job.
Anonymous said…
Not sure how you can bash battery storage without even mentioning Elon Musk's new technology. Maybe it's overclaimed, maybe it's not. But a blog post looking into whether this technology could really make renewables reliable enough for the grid would be much more informative in 2015 than the same tired arguments against wind and solar.
Rod Adams said…
Maybe it is impolite of me to point this out, but the Stanford advocates of 100% renewable energy systems have received a substantial amount of support from Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy. Jay Precourt, the man who provided at least $80 million and his name to the institute earned his BS ('59) and MS ('60) in petroleum engineering at Stanford.

He has held a variety of responsible and apparently lucrative positions in the global oil and gas industry.

I've published more details on Atomic Insights. Please see http://atomicinsights.com/stanford-climate-scientists-promote-100-renewable-revolution-using-fossil-fuel-money/ and its related posts.
Gene Preston said…
Matt, your readers may be interested in simulations I have done for the ERCOT system pushing renewables to 100% of the energy, i.e. zero fossil fuels. The renewable power swings are enormous and the battery is enormous with an estimated cost of $6600 billion. Details are posted here http://egpreston.com/100percentrenewables.pdf
Gene Preston said…
Elon's battery should work well with microgrids. Microgrids offer many opportunities including the ability to stabilize the larger grid for certain types of problems as fossil fuels are being phased out. The microgrid may allow a pathway for the microgrid owner to help finance and own a portion of a new nuclear plant if we can get all the regulatory, electronic, and accounting pieces to fit together. See my comments about microgrids posted here http://egpreston.com/100percentrenewables.pdf
IBEX said…
Matt
Nice summary. As to your point and to Anonymous, capital and O&M costs for battery or any other form of storage technology MUST also be considered in the total cost to deliver when analyzing alternatives. That added flexibility also comes at premium. As for Musk, he is very adapt at lobbying and negotiating for large government handouts and subsidies paid by taxpayers, masking what would otherwise be the real and actual costs in a levelized open market.
Gene Preston said…
Matt. Its not Elon's politics that are of most interest. It's his statement that he will sell the batteries for $100 per kWh.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…