Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

10 Reasons Renewable Energy May Beat the Projections

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
51 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 51
September 21, 2011
Everyone (thats EVERYONE) should view the video: "Earth - The Operator's Manual". 52:43 video at http://www.earththeoperatorsmanual.com/broadcast_info
Summary:
The sun delivers 173,000 Terawatts to the earth. That's 11,000 times the current human use of 15.7 Terawatts. (Wind can produce 78x human use. Biomass can produce 11x human use. Geothermal: 3x, and Hydro 0.12x)
An excellent book is available too, that I checked out at my local library. Great Science!
Comment
2 of 51
September 21, 2011
I like reading hopeful, optimistic columns like this. So please, someone tell me, how renewable power is NOW (not planned) overcoming the variability problem (i.e., no one wants it because it fluctuates too much -- it's too variable -- and base load smoothing technology, much less cost-feasible electricity storage, ain't gonna happen anytime soon).

I keep reading these columns and articles and it's the elephant in the room that is constantly ignored. It's a deal-killer, but politicians and bureaucrats ignore it when pouring billions of our money (can you say "Solyndra"?) into this sector. More here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/hybrid-brown-green-plant-por
Comment
3 of 51
September 22, 2011
Very interesting article.Yes. Renewables are advancing and may meet the projections to a large extent.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Comment
4 of 51
September 22, 2011
WE DO NOT HAVE A CARBON PROBLEM WE HAVE AN OZONE PROBLEM
LOW LEVEL OZONBE IS FORMED FROMED FROM VOC'S; IDES; AND OXIDES; OR IN PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH OXYGEN ATTACHING EVERTHING ON EARTH THAT RELEASE ALL FROMS OF IDES GASES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE OR WATER VAPOR.
Comment
5 of 51
September 22, 2011
Those CC gas plants are operating as peaker plants when they supplement wind and solar. With wind you pay for two plants to get the output of one.
Solar is trivial. Wind and solar are erratic and expensive supplements destined for a minor and subsidized role in electric energy production.
Comment
6 of 51
September 22, 2011
TO sbarnes THE FIGURES TO STATE BUT A FEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND.
FIGURES USED IN THE BOOK FOR WIND AND SOLAR ARE NOT UNIFORM OR CONSTANT IN ANY ONE LOCATION; TIME AND LIGHT SPECTRUM ALSO BECOEM FACTORS; ADD INEFFICENT EQUIPMENT REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ENERGY ; PLUS MAN CHANGES THE HEAT SINK OF THE EARTH AND A ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM DESINGED BY GOD AND CREATE NEW UHI.

ASK YOUR SELF THIS QUESTION WHY WERE DESERTS CREATED BY GOD; THEYA RE ONE BIG HEAT SINK ALONG WITH THE OCEANS
SEE NEW NASA AND CERN FINDINGS ON SOLAR RADATION
WIND AND SOALR ARE REALLY LIMITED AND OVER HYPED

WHY DOES THE BOOK DOWNGRADE BIOMASS AND HYDRO WHEN BOTHOFFER THE GREATEST POTENTIAL; GEOTHERMAL IS ALSO BEING REEAVLAUTED
Comment
7 of 51
September 22, 2011
I read all these comments that are negative. How are we going to solve the intermittent problem. We can not do this or that. What happened to the "Can Do" attitiude of Americans. I am sure solutions will be developed. Today the Grid can easily handle 15 to 20 % renewables with exisitng systems of a 50 year old grid. All projects appear to say we will not get to that point until 2020 or 2025. We have time to find the solution.

With this aditude we would not have made it to the Moon ten years after the US first space flight and 12 years after mans first space flight.

Lets commit to do this and let Americans do what they do best. Solve problems.
Comment
8 of 51
September 22, 2011
Free-Marketeer - solar and wind should be, and generally are, grid tied, complementing the primary (nuclear, coal, gas) plant, with the utility balancing the load based on variable production. I believe most plants will move to natural gas within 50 years.
Comment
9 of 51
September 22, 2011
I'm thinking of the mix of the power portfolio by 2035. (And I bat .050 on predictions.)

By the 3 well-recognized PO calculations, in 2035 PO will be an everyday household word as ATM fee and 2% milk. RE cannot replace oil as THE fuel that fuels our "mandated" economic growth, and we cannot transit to RE without oil. So we're going to fall back to coal, to lots and lots of dirty coal that is. And lots of self-imposed and mandated demand destruction too, which hurts economical growth as we've been experiencing since the autumn of 2008, but that's another topic.

So looking at the power mix by 2035, it is plausible that RE will not put much of dent in the mix. Which is very sad and concerning, especially for parents. A solution is to put pedal to the metal, so to speak, and develop RE while resources are abundant and cheap, and to start transitioning from exuberant to modest lives.

And for disclosure, I'm a RE developer, so I do have a biased agenda in RE. And also remember I bat .050 when it comes to predictions.
Comment
10 of 51
September 22, 2011
I am one who has two negative commnets on the subject ; but here are some postives on our ozone global warming problem.

Do away with the internal combustion engine and replace with the diesel engines; hybrid are no the answersanda re just play toys of the rich; jsut take a look a the battery pack which is a glorifed heat sink which requires special handling in parts of country and the world.

Recycle; if we recycel 90% of our trash we cut energy consumption by 50% and at some point in the future maybe more.
More efficent use of land return to green space and earth's natural defenses created by God.

Here is areal world happening; hom wmany times has WAL MART built a new store near the older smaller store and goes unsed for long periods of time?

We all are guilty of the same thing.
Comment
11 of 51
September 22, 2011
Regarding the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy, it is obvious that cost-effective energy storage systems are needed in order to retire baseload power plants. The first solar thermal CSP plant with 24/7 power generation is now operational in Spain, which uses a molten salt storage medium. If this proves to be a successful solution, then many more such systems will follow. Another way to displace baseload electric power is through the deployment of solar hot water systems that displace electricity. These units already have storage. Commercial air conditioning is the primary driver for electric power demand in the US. Solar-driven 2E absorption chillers are now cost-effective in many parts of the US, and such systems with natural gas or biofuel backup will permanently relieve the grid of electrical demand (~1MW for every 1000 tons installed.) Finally, there are locations where winds are steady, such as off the coast of North Carolina, and it is anticipated that off-shore wind farms will be able to deliver 24/7 power most of the time.
Comment
12 of 51
September 22, 2011
There are forms of base-load power out there ready to be tapped. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is 24/7, emission free power that uses the temperature difference in ocean water to create electricity. It's proven, and it's going to be built in the Bahamas. Sure, it's not the answer to everyone's energy needs, but it's a step in the right direction for our planet's future, and can cut a region's dependency on fossil fuels. Learn lots more at The On Project http://tiny.cc/ala0t The author talks about 3rd world growth, OTEC is the kind of power that can dramatically improve the lives of much of the developing world. The main byproduct of OTEC is clean water! Seriously inspiring stuff. Hope you all will look more into it.
Comment
13 of 51
September 22, 2011
Advancements are needed in order to reduce the costs and if solar power is to outpace demand the speed at which governments implement change must be increased. New technologies are emerging from their infancy such as solar printing, and when these ways of easily adding solar generation to any business or residence expand the overall demand on government run generation plants will decrease therefor taking care of the short comings in solar power generation and storage today.
Comment
14 of 51
September 22, 2011
Free-Marketeer, I have noticed you have been recently involved in posts at REW. I also respect your 'no-bull' attitude on the reality of our world's energy situation.

My question to you is this: What is your take on Germany's proposal to dismantle their nuclear power by 2022 and achieve 35% renewable energy by 2020?

Personally, I don't think they can do it. I support nuclear energy because I believe that it has the most potential, in the long run, to avoid the energy crunch that the world will face before the end of this century.

Javier
Comment
15 of 51
September 22, 2011
Straubmichael

Ther has be an Ocean Thermal Plant running in Hawiwi for the last 25 to 30 years. This is the first time I have heard of another possible installation. Maybe this will be economically feasible.
Comment
16 of 51
September 22, 2011
On the issue of intermittent power, The more distributed solar PV you have the more reliable, stable and most importantly predictable it is. Over a regional area, I can predict the weather to within 10% accuracy up to 24 hours in advance in (I seem to remember) 10 minute increments. A single large array may cause a large spike one way or the other, but a large number of smaller arrays distributed over a city will never cause a large spike, only a relatively gradual increase/decrease.

If the vast majority of our energy is needed in the day-time and solar works during the day time, then the vast majority of the power can be handled by solar. Natural Gas plants are quite acceptable for making up the difference until we have better energy storage then we do today. They have more then enough responsiveness to handle the variability of distributed solar. The base load (mostly equals the power at night) may need different solutions for now (like nuclear), but eventually that will go away. But if I can eliminate coal plants using solar, I say do it.
Comment
17 of 51
September 23, 2011
It is hard to supply the demand of growing China. That's why increasing oil prices hits world economy. Countries need to find a way to produce the energy at their own home land. Us has vast soil in order to achieve this. I guess biofuels will take the lead in order to fullfill this approach.

http://endofcrudeoil.blogspot.com/2011/09/global-biofuels-production.html
Comment
18 of 51
September 23, 2011
Two myths about Renewables

1. Re the large-scale development of wind power... the supposed requirement for enormous "backup power", sometimes quoted at 100%, is just untrue, particularly offshore on the Bight where the wind is more constant. The same tools that utility system operators use every day to deal with variations in electric supply and demand can readily be used to accommodate the variability of changes in wind energy production. On average, adding 3 MW of wind energy to the U.S. electric grid would at most require anywhere from 0 to 0.01 MW of additional spinning reserves, and 0 to 0.07 MW of non-spinning reserves. (AWEA&EERE)

Here the 'spine', as well as the Bight's shelf geology, plays an important role. Markian Melnyk developed the idea of the offhore spine while researching his book "Offshore Power". He notes that Its high voltage technology will increase the consistency of the power produced by connecting the farms together offshore and to the eastern grid at a limited number of sites, enhancing the stability of production and giving our utilities an enhanced ability to deal with rapid changes in demand.

The second myth .. an omission. On-site production reduces the demand for grid energy by as much as 60%. As solar deployment increases dramatically in the next 5 years the concepts of the Virtual utility will begin to work it's magic on demand; many producers and owners of production tied together in new ways. The old central utility is as old as those 40+ year old coal plants that must go regardless of renewable penetration.
Comment
19 of 51
September 23, 2011
As usual, Free-marketer makes an extreme statement not supported by data. 'So please, someone tell me, how renewable power is NOW (not planned) overcoming the variability problem (i.e., no one wants it because it fluctuates too much -- it's too variable -- and base load smoothing technology, much less cost-feasible electricity storage, ain't gonna happen anytime soon).'
First, variable generation is not a new thing or is it specific to solar or wind. Scheduled and unscheduled downtime happens everywhere. Niagra Falls power generation peaks and is curtailed in response to weather conditions and levels of tourism. The system even has to deal with long term scheduled and unscheduled variability from hours up to months and even years. And it does. Of course, NG generators are the most common means of handling variability. However, the number of pumped hydro generators in the US now is substantial and growing. The best kind of storage is virtual storage which also currently widely practiced: system operators have elaborate operating schemes where dispatchable generators are scheduled up and down to offset variable demand as well as variable capacity. Part of this scheme is geographic diversity where excess capacity is connected to loads up to thousands of miles away. Also, there are many US examples of battery stations being used to buffer the system and maintain quality of service. It's very inaccurate to suggest that the system does not already have storage solutions in hand. Texas recently experienced a confluence of high demand and low wind; however, the entire deficiency could have been managed by simply implementing pumped storage on a fraction of all of the man made water reservoirs with hydro capacity / less than 3% of the total man made reservoir capacity.

There are two forms of generation in search of storage solutions though. Coal power still has no viable solutions for storing CO2 or ash. Nuclear power also has no storage solution. And none in sight.
Comment
20 of 51
September 23, 2011
If one is going to obsess about variable generation, one should be equally obsessive about lack of variability. Nuclear and most high-efficiency coal generators have poor dispatchability. In the face of variable demand, they are frequently unavailable because they can't be cycled sufficiently rapidly. These must either be curtailed, which is an inefficient use, or (guess what) they require storage to compensate for the fact that they are not variable. As an example, Ontario has a considerable nuclear capacity and the system operator has to pay in the order of $80M per year in curtailment charges to the plant owners since, when capacity exceeds off-peak demand, these generators must be taken off-line for extended periods of time.

Please note: Base load generation (by definition) is capacity that can be brought on line at the lowest run-rate cost. That would likely be wind as wind farms impose a load when not dispatched and consequently can be brought on-line at little or even negative cost.
Comment
21 of 51
September 23, 2011
FWIW - an interesting development for those wondering where OTEC stands and what is in store for market-based development - check out this news from OTE Corp, which just signed an agreement with the Bahamas Electricity Corporation to build two plants in the Bahamas. Here is some additional information: http://bit.ly/oR31KE
Comment
22 of 51
September 23, 2011
Oil and gas prices will fall injuring the present renewable marketplace.
Commodities traders face the alarming disintegration of the gold,corn,wheat,and soybean markets and the impending arrival of calls on their flimsy positions in oil and gas.
However,over the next ten years,the taxes gained on income taxes from workers in the renewable energy companies will more than make up for the lost capital gains in commodities.It will become chic to promote domestic renewable resources.
Comment
23 of 51
WFD
September 24, 2011
So much discussion about the variability issue - but there is a system in development that largely solves this problem. See www.windfuels.com. The problem is solved first by looking at the problem in reverse - not how do you store energy for use during periods of low production, but how do you dump demand during periods of low production. The answer is that you use high electricity production periods to synthesize fuel, consuming otherwise wasted carbon dioxide in the process (note this mitigates GHG loading), but at low renewable electricity production periods you shed the electrical feed to the fuel synthesis process. The electricity is mainly used to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen which, combined with CO extracted from the CO2, produces any hydrocarbon fuel you want - diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, alcohols, etc., even methane, but the economics only needs long term average production rates and can be interrupted as needed to shed electrical load. Right now there are large amounts of windpower curtailed at night for lack of demand, all of which will enhance the economics of wind farms when coupled to a WindFuels plant. Interestingly you also get energy storage in the fuel produced which is a second valuable feature on top of solving the variability problem. At the same time, a link is created to produce fuels from renewable sources so the major renewable energy problems (electricity, transportation and building heat) are all addressed by one integrated solution. Importantly, WindFuels has developed high efficiency methods for the entire process that makes it competitive with oil at ~$50/barrel. I have no investment in WindFuels, but only speak out of concern for the future and how our grandchildren will think of us for having trashed their planet.
Comment
24 of 51
September 24, 2011
@WFD
You are right, using curtailed (or even stranded) renewables to produce carbon based fuels is great, but why not lose the carbon and produce NH3? Now you have a fuel that can run an engine or fertilize fields. The engine will produce zero GHG emissions and it's easier to get N out of the air than C. Check out nh3fuelassociation.org
Comment
25 of 51
September 24, 2011
WFD - thanks for the commercial. The point is that energy storage solutions and other methods of supply management are already well developed and in use -- the only issue is the level of deployment. Some 'reasons' why this is not as fully developed as it should be.
1. The system designed around peak capacity with generation connected directly to load. Obviously, a system where generation just meets average demand with storage to handle variability is much more efficient regardless of generation technology - especially since many have technical issues that limit their ability to flex or have greatest efficiency over a limited range of operation. Ideally, all generators would operate at optimum output at all times providing best possible efficiency and ROI for owners. One constraint on the storage approach is the dominance of the central plant model and the available selling price bonuses paid to generators for peaking capacity.
2. Distributors are constrained from implementing storage anywhere in the distribution network as storage can be classified as generating capacity and these utilities are generally regulated out of the generation business. There is a simple economic reason for this: while LDUs receive 8% of revenue and grid operators 32%, power producers receive 60% and have the most influence over the politics. Storage could transfer revenue away from generators.
3. Building grid capacity to maximize virtual storage is fraught with difficulty as the creation of a truly national grid is constrained by regulations and policies that prevent any such scheme from being implemented. To a large extent, this is simply parochialism at the state level.
4. Demand management which should be a part of the system and which won't happen anytime soon. One large impediment is that North American utilities favor custom communication protocols over standards preventing interoperability and deployment of local energy management systems and smart appliances.
Comment
26 of 51
September 24, 2011
One good reason for a healthy demand for renewable energy is demand. As long as demand increases, grid development founders and conservation, particularly in North America, is ignored, availability of new capacity will be an important parameter. When large scale commercial solar projects can be deployed in 1/50th of the time of a nuclear generator or 1/20th the time of a dirty coal plant, or 1/100th the time of a clean coal plant (practical clean coal technology does not yet exist), it may, if nothing else, provide a sufficiently timely solution to meeting new demand. Wind power is nearly as effective in this regard trading somewhat longer timelines for lower capex. Distributed solar has an additional edge in that it can meet new demand without depending very much on grid development.

As far as grid parity goes, if one looks at the average price paid for the most expensive 50% of power purchased now, grid parity has come and gone.

Another reason is the low rate of adoption of conservation measures. This is the green alternative to the development of green energy. It's pretty clear that in North America at least, green power is much more popular than conservation. While conservation to the level of the best case European countries would be the same as replacing 50% of non-renewable energy with renewable energy, the market shows that individuals, corporations and particularly governments are much more likely to invest in new energy production than in conservation.
Comment
27 of 51
WFD
September 24, 2011
Jamie,
You are also right, but WindFuels proposes to get the CO2 from point sources like fertilizer plants, cement factories, and we can hardly avoid a few decades of coal fired generation which could capture CO2 to be feedstock to WindFuels. Such point sources exceed the total carbon in transportation fuels. We also have a huge legacy of hydrocarbon internal combustion engines. Ammonia engines can also become part of the solution and likely will in coming decades. Market forces will largely determine the relative trajectories of the competing technologies, hopefully given strong nudges by legislative policy which has resisted recognizing the true dimensions of the climate change threat so far. In my opinion the hits we are taking in increasing strength and numbers of weather related disasters are already tied to climate change. Floods : Mississippi, Pakistan, Australia. Wildfires: Russia, USA, Australia. Hurricanes worldwide. Tornados. European heat wave killed tens of thousands (2003). The deniers scream that science can't prove these were caused by global warming, much less anthropogenically caused global warming, but that is the wrong question. Absolute proof is not the issue. The appropriate question is what are the ODDS that these events are the forerunners of far worse AGW now in the pipeline ? Wise action should be based on a savvy assessment of the situation. What use is it to prove you were right if you are already dead ?
Comment
28 of 51
WFD
September 24, 2011
Gerald R is quite right that direct electrical energy use is (much) better than energy storage and retrieval which will always lose a sizeable percentage. That is one of the advantages of WindFuels, that demand is always directly fed and the waste associated with keeping spinning reserves could be reduced with extensive deployment of WindFuels. These points are not a "commercial" for WindFuels, at least not coming from me. I reiterate that I have no commercial interest in the company, am not employed by them and have no investment there. It is only my independent assessment that this is an important technology and consider it the urgent task of today to mitigate global warming, to deal with peak oil and a host of other issues that are threatening to cast humanity into grief.
Comment
29 of 51
September 24, 2011
WFD,
Agree with your response. If you have an easy source of CO2 carbon fuels can still make sense. With stranded resources NH3 probably makes more sense.

Good point also about AGW and raising the right question. I saw a presentation this week that showed a compelling correlation between climate change and earthquakes. Basically, ice cycles are getting more extreme and all of the major earthquakes in the last several years coincide almost exactly with a high or low point in the cycle.

Another point about integrating renewables: Spain has achieved over 50% of their power supply from wind, and they often are in the 40% territory. We are still less than 2%. Don't we have some capacity growth room before storage becomes the main issue?
Comment
30 of 51
September 25, 2011
Clee,
Thank you for correcting me about my 2% number, 3.3% is certainly more significant. As for the Spain number, the 40 and 50% I was referring to was instantaneous power, as in kW available divided by kW demand, not cumulative energy as in total kWh.

The article talks of beating an EIA projection of 5% total renewables growth by 2035, which I assume means that we will be nowhere near doubling wind capacity every two years. I am all for planning for and making this happen, but the likelihood of that growth with the current political attitude of renewable energy being partly responsible for our economic problems is quite low.

Only long-term stable policy that prices the pollution and other true costs of acquisition of conventional energy will create the kind of growth you suggest. The current incentives have been helpful but as in all ways the government tries to spend to influence the market, many mistakes are made. I believe a carbon tax to be the most accurate solution, but perhaps a national sales tax, like the fair tax talked about, could work if it were set up to tax fuel and not energy.
Comment
31 of 51
September 25, 2011
The so called Wind Fuels process will not use stranded wind energy. It will run electrolyzers eight hours a night at a steady rate using relatively cheap nighttime baseload electricity. Insofar as wind energy is a component of night time baseload electricity generation it will be utilized, but the electrolyzers will not be turned up and down to accommodate wind fluctuations. For example if wind turbines with 25% capacity factor eventually provide 30% of total electricity supply then fluctuations in wind power far above the baseline nighttime demand will take place. Wind Fuels may increase the amount of wind power that can be integrated into the grid, but it is hardly a general purpose storage solution that will completely fix the problems associated with wind intermittency.

The reason the Wind Fuels will not run off stranded wind energy is that electrolyzers are expensive pieces of capital equipment, and running the off of a fraction of the power output of wind turbines with 25% capacity factor would lead to very low utilization rate of this capital. If you read the Wind Fuels web site you will see that they are counting on a factor of six reduction in electrolyzer costs over the next decade in order to compete with oil. Alkaline electrolysis of water is a well established technology with no huge technology breakthroughs on the horizon. In a previous conversation with Glenn Doty on this web site it is clear that he is counting on economies of scale in mass production for most of the projected 600% cost reduction. Even if such economies of scale are available, there is still a chicken or egg problem in realizing them in practice: Mass production requires mass demand. Mass demand will occur only when initial production plants using current technology can start producing fuel at a profit. If this break in point for the Wind Fuels technology starts at $200/barrel then a lot of economic destruction will have to take place before this technology can get off the ground.
Comment
32 of 51
September 25, 2011
@Clee
All good points, except perhaps agreeing with Rogerkb, who had a pretty closed-minded perspective. While many points were valid, he overlooks the fact that many stranded renewable resources have very high capacity factors. OTEC for instance has baseload level NCF.

@Larry
Yes, all true. NH3 can be produced from air and water on commercial equipment and it consumes lots of power. There is a 3 long ton per day system available that consumes 1.6 MW. Assuming you could buy power for 3¢/kWh and you are only amortizing the equipment (20 yr. w/o interest), you could conceivably produce NH3 for under $3.50 per GGE. 4¢/kWh and you're spending $4.25/GGE. Remember you haven't paid interest and you're not making any money yet.

I think it's worth keeping that money in our economy versus sending it overseas, but many will feel it's too economically damaging to up the fuel cost that much.
Comment
33 of 51
September 26, 2011
Rogerkb,

First, let me say thank you for reading our website and considering our approach... but there are a few things you've misunderstood, and we may wish to revise the wording of our website in light of that.

To start, we do plan on using the electrolyzers intermittently - between 33-50%. In regions with high wind energy penetration, you'll often see a great deal of curtailment during any hour of the day, so we cannot claim to know that we will only be electrolyzing water at night, in fact we probably won't.

The inclusion of the RTO market data was merely intended to show that, during any given day, the 8 cheapest hours of electricity average below $10/MWh (open market price), and this pricing has been maintained for over 3 years and held constant (in some cases even dropping). But those 8 hours are not contiguous, nor are they honest representations of any given minute, as in many RTO's and ISO's the energy is traded in 5-minute intervals, and the historic pricing data merely averages the price out by the hour.

So we were using market data to support our electricity price estimates in high wind regions, but we don't plan on simply running the electrolyzers for 8 contiguous hours at night, merely for an average of 8 hours/day every day... The grid managers would then use our electrolyzers as a "pressure valve" for the system - any time excess energy starts ramping up over a given 15-minute period they could direct it towards us at a fixed price rather than paying as much as $500/MWh for someone else to take that energy off their hands.

This would serve a region with high wind penetration (typical capacity factor >35%) by giving an artificial floor for real time energy trades, and eliminating the need to curtail their wind power. In 2009, the state of Texas alone curtailed more than 5 TWh of wind power, with not one day passing without some curtailment.

The technology would benefit wind power integration. That is the intent.
Comment
34 of 51
September 26, 2011
Rogerkb,

A note on the electrolyzer costs. You are correct that the first several WindFuels plants would require prices that are substantially higher than they are today, as they chicken/egg problem you mentioned does exist to some extent.

However, our current economic models reflect prices that are ~2.5X the projected ultimate price that the DOE assumed. Our modeled prices are more than half of current prices for large systems that have been contracted this year... and even at today's very small electrolyzer market there has been considerable price reduction in electrolyzers within the past 3 years.

If you were to double the price of electrolyzers that we estimated within our economic models (which again would price the electrolyzers at today's prices), then the cost of producing a gallon of diesel fuel would increase by 26 cents. The cost of producing a gallon of gasoline and jet fuel would increase by 25 cents.

So we wouldn't be able to compete with oil at $50/bbl using current electrolyzer costs, but we would easily be able to compete with the cost of oil today, and would easily be able to compete with the cost of oil in ~6 years time, when we should be deployment ready. After the first year of deployment, we should see the electrolyzer market increase by an order of magnitude, which would likely reduce the cost of electrolyzer production by 60%.

While electrolyzers are expensive, the price of oil is more than high enough to make the impact on plant profitability negligible.
Comment
35 of 51
September 26, 2011
Jamie - this final point to Rogerkb is the reason why hydrocarbon fuels are inherently a better investment than ammonia. Ammonia is simply too cheap to consider in today's market. The capital cost for the electrolyzers and chemical plant and energy inputs would far exceed the market price for the product, which means the process would never be economically viable.

For WindFuels, capital costs would be ~$0.60/gallon, O&M costs would be ~0.20/gallon, energy costs would be ~$0.45/gallon, CO2 costs would be ~$0.30/gallon, and water costs would be ~$0.02/gallon. Total of ~$1.57/gallon. Today's pre-tax wholesale price for gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel all average just shy of $3/gallon, which implies a profit of ~$1.40/gallon before any other considerations (tax credits, fuel subsidies, grid integration subsidies, carbon offsets, etc). These numbers reflect the same price that we have for electrolyzers within our models... so if you incorporate Rogerkb's objections, the profit is reduced to ~$1.15/gallon.

But a theoretical ammonia plant would not be significantly less on capital or O&M expenses (or water, not that that matters), would be ~half as much on energy expenses, and of course would require no CO2.

The numbers work out to ~$1.00/gallon for ammonia. But today's market price for ammonia is $560/tonne, which works out to ~$1.40/gallon. So before any other consideration, with ammonia you are looking at a potential of only ~$0.40/gallon. If you then address rogerkb's criticism and use current pricing for electrolyzers, the profit drops to only $0.15/gallon.

One of these has a market potential to grow... and the other one is just another non-viable concept that requires infinite subsidies and support in order to keep investors interested.
Comment
36 of 51
September 26, 2011
I thought I'd make a quick response to the root article before returning to the lab.

One thing that the EIA clearly did not factor into their projections is the potential for extreme events to change a person's risk assessment concerning the status quo.

In Texas this summer, the all time record monthly average temperature was beaten by ~2.5 degrees. As a result, there were several days of completely insufficient capacity on the grid. In North Texas, real time prices spiked over $2000/MWh ($2.00/kWh) during the afternoon for several days.

This was an extreme heat wave coupled with an extreme drought. The causes were random weather anomalies exaggerated by global warming... but it may in fact be many years before such an anomalous weather pattern is repeated (we just don't know how global warming will unfold, we know it makes anomalous weather patterns worse and more common... but this was an extremely abnormal event, so it's unlikely Texans will see its equal in the next decade).

HOWEVER,

Despite the fact that the event was an anomaly, many Texans will be traumatized by their power bills... It would not surprise me if there is a MASSIVE increase in distributed solar build-out all across the conservative state in the coming years, as a solar panel built in Texas last year would have saved a significant portion of its cost just in the summer of 2011.

Similarly, a single event in Saudi Arabia might cause oil prices to spike to $500/bbl for a year, or the drought could force multiple coal and nuclear plants to power down, sending average electricity prices over $1/kWh for several months thoughout the Southern Midwest...

Any such event would shift purchasing patterns for decades, and it's likely that these shifts will always lean towards a permanent conditioning towards increased purchase of sustainable energy or conservation.

That's just my two cents.
Comment
37 of 51
September 26, 2011
Let's be clear - I think storage is a good idea. To be sure, storage has a certain amount of intrinsic inefficiency; however, have generators that operate less than 50% of the time, in some cases only a few 100 hours per year is inefficient. A generator that operates only 50% of optimum capacity still has fixed costs and produces power at a higher cost than if it operated at optimum capacity. If the system were completely buffered, the total amount of generation needed would be considerably reduced as would cost of production. Also, the grid could operate at a lower capacity and would have less line losses. Curtailment costs would also be substantially reduced. All of these efficiencies would more than offset storage inefficiencies. This is the basic concept behind fuel economy in hybrid vehicles.

I also support geographic diversity as a means of buffering variable and fixed generation. All that is needed is long range HVDC grid designed to support this if we can somehow get by parochial concerns.

I also recommend load management. To a significant extent, power consumption is somewhat discretionary. Direct load management and dynamic power pricing are two tools that have been shown to substantially reduce peak demand. Anything that shifts load and levels demand is good for the efficiency of the system and reduces the need for storage.

Glenn reiterates an important point: the amount paid for power is variable and the amount paid for the last 10% of supply to meet peak demand is many times above the median rate. Anything that can be done to avoid this would reduce the average price of electricity by a substantial amount. But there's two sides to that coin - suppliers with peaking capacity can afford to operate inefficiently because they can pass along the increased cost and then some (i.e. achieve higher margins). This is a disincentive to improving the system. If consumers actually paid less, there' be less money in the system and less profit for suppliers.
Comment
38 of 51
September 26, 2011
Here's why renewables work. Inputs are almost free and non-inflationary. Time to market is extremely short so cost of capital is much lower. Overnight costs, unlike those for other technologies are counter-inflationary.

One issue is that the cost of new renewable generation is typically compared to the lowest cost legacy generation i.e. very old coal fired plants that have paid off their capital and have been grand-fathered with respect to environmental regulation. The correct comparison is to compare new generation of each type for a fixed timeframe (e.g. 25 years) starting today. In this light, capacity that takes a very long time to come on line is disproportionately expensive.
Comment
39 of 51
WFD
September 26, 2011
Clee's last point (comment 46) also shows a big advantage of WindFuels - no storage is needed and irregularity is handled by demand management. WindFuels plants could gobble up all the excess generation, whenever it occurs, and turn it into transportation fuels which is the value product while wind and any other irregular renewable has a place to put all the power they can deliver at maximum efficiency. No expenditure for storage, no lost energy from going into and coming back out of storage.
Comment
40 of 51
September 29, 2011
Windfuels does sound like an interesting balancing option which, if widely distributed, could take considerable pressure off the grid. I find it interesting that there has been almost no discussion of increasing pumped hydro capacity or use of smart metering/smart appliances and car charging as viable alternatives.

Pumped hydro has the advantage of its ability to provide almost instantaneous electricity generation as stored water is released, and lots of power is soaked up while pumping upstream.

One problem I see with the Windfuels concept is that it produces more fuel to burn, which just serves to extend our FF dependence. We need to get out of the FF burning business, even if it is synthetic.

On another note, we should pressure the powers that be to mandate distributed generation in all new construction, whether that be in the form of rooftop PV, rooftop hot water, geothermal, or other systems. Feed-in tariffs should also be implemented a la Germany to encourage all of us to contribute. Hawaii is in a great geographical position for water heating, but there is no reason not to implement it and electricity generation elsewhere.
Comment
41 of 51
October 1, 2011
Anonymous wrote, in response to my point that no one "wants" wind and solar electricity because it's too variable:

"The wind and solar market has doubled in the past two or three years, including in the utilities sector, so it's strange to claim that no one wants it. The method GE has for handling the variability is their high efficiency combined-cycle natural gas turbines that can ramp up and down quickly with minimal loss of efficiency. Without those, we'd continue to use peaker plants as we do today. This completely solves the variability problem you mention. However this doesn't make solar or wind cheaper, so utilities may still not like solar for cost reasons, but manufacturing costs continue to drop as the market continues to grow."

Wind & solar have grown over the years, but NOT because they make sense in economic terms -- witness the fact that they ONLY grow because of subsidies multiple levels (65% of my 10KW system covered by tax credits; in some states public and utility rebates are handed out, in some areas inflated reverse-meter payments are made, etc.). Because of gov't interference -- subsidizing is simply another way gov't picks winners and losers, not the free market -- we wind up lacking a clear picture of what makes economic/ecologic sense. Joe Six Pack ain't buying, unless subsidy-bribed, and that's not a FREE market where solar will flourish.

Meanwhile, please cite to me specific GE gas/turbine hybrid plants (that smooth wind/solar power into market-attractive base load or even peak load power). Just one plant, and not a "subsidy-hog" project. Because I WANT that "GE plant" to be true. But I've yet to see a pure, market-sense (as in, not being operated at a perpetual loss) example.

(cont'd next post)
Comment
42 of 51
October 1, 2011
I hope concepts like windfuels.com work, but I believe the immediate energy future for 'the little guy' is in the grid-tied, Solar PV market, which has a good chance of REALLY taking off by mid-2015. Here's my 10KW system, installed at $3.5/watt, $1.4/watt subsidized:

https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/A54KWHDay

It cost $35,000 up front, $14,000 after tax credits, and with $.07 reverse meter credits and $.13/KWH standard power rates, it makes/saves me $1000/year. Hence, a 14 year payback cycle.

'Joe' won't go for that.

Maybe 7, though, as that's the longest he's used to going out on for a car loan.

We're talking mass psychology, mass-consumerism here, OK?

Meantime, if we quit fighting the Chinese and welcome their awesome transfer of net wealth to us (via hyper-subsidized solar panels), and free up the $2,000 average permit/red-tape costs of such systems (mine was largely Do It Yourself in a no-code, no-zoning county), Solar PV prices can fall substantially. How far? Don't know for sure.

But I do know this: $.70/watt (half of what I paid a year ago for my system) would translate into a 7-year payback cycle. Hence, I'd be able to brag to my neighbor that I'll never pay a power bill again for 30 years and after 7 I'll save/make $1000/year, tax free, for the 23 years after that.

He'll then immediately scramble to the Home Depot 'Solar Aisle' to get his, and that's how we get 10 million 10KW arrays erected by 2015, 50 million in 2016, etc.

Because it makes economic sense, puts money in his pocket, and raises his home's value (another dose of wealth dealt him).

(cont'd next post)
Comment
43 of 51
October 1, 2011
I'm focusing on 10KW because a 10KW array serves the average family of four (they consume 12,000 KWH a year, mine just produced 15,000 KWH in 11.7 months), and with few technical skills I 'barn-raised' mine in 2 weekends. Plus I'm here to tell you -- there are no moving parts and nothing to do -- rain keeps my panels clean.

Anyway, my question is this: If 100 million 10KW arrays were set up by 2018, and thousands thus dotted the 5 county, Central Georgia area where I live, how many fewer brown power (coal, nukes, gas) would be built? How would the Eastern Grid COST-FEASIBLY handle the variability flowing off those arrays with proven, currently available technology that does NOT need to be subsidized?

Depending on the answers, I've got some money to invest. Friends, too.

But I've yet to see proven, working examples of utility systems that are able to efficiently handle such randomly sited, inescapably variable, solar PV power. And there is NO cost-feasible energy storage system on the horizon, only "website plans" and "visions" (like windfuels.com).

What I do see are utilities (like mine) FORCED by state law to buy power like mine, whether they want it or not.

(con't next post)
Comment
44 of 51
October 1, 2011
And that's another example of gov't interference in a market sector -- an interference that clouds the market (I don't know if my utility's general manager 'really' wants my power or is just playing along because the law forces it on him; hence, why invest in more Solar PV if it's just one big forced-circle-jerk?).

The information-polluting gov't interference (at both the subsidy and forced-transaction levels) is what's deep-core wrong with the current 'green' energy market, and why no one wants to invest (hence, photo-opp hungry politicians and their bureaucrats just gave billions more of our money away last week to yet more Corporate Solar Welfare Queens).

I say this as a Solar PV producer (yes, who hypocritically copped enormous subsidies): Get the gov't OUT of this sector and let the millions of private investors/consumers pick the winners and losers. When that happens, I believe Solar PV will predominate (and thanks, China, for that historic wealth transfer to the U.S., and for kick-starting our Solar PV market by producing myriad Balance-of-System based jobs!).

But I still don't know if the variability factor will be solved, even with millions of 10KW arrays. And thus if after all that we've still got to run large numbers of brown power plants, then what will we have accomplished? Will vast numbers of 10KW arrays, spread wide and grid-tied, naturally smooth out the flow? Info, please.

More on solar economics here: https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/
Comment
45 of 51
October 12, 2011
Here's my open letter to MAGE Solar, who sold me my 10KW Solar PV system just over one year ago:

https://sites.google.com/site/freemarketsolarpower/home/my-open-letter-to-mage-solar
Comment
46 of 51
October 13, 2011
@Free-Marketeer, the one area where I think you may be wrong is that Average Joe would buy a solar system if it came with a new house on a 15, 20 or 30yr mortgage.

Otherwise spot on.
Comment
47 of 51
October 13, 2011
Longwatcher, good point. But like anything, price rules. Load up too much on a roof that a man needs to put over his family's head and at some point he just can't afford it, even if you stretch his payments out 30 years.

Which is precisely why I own the lowest priced, positive-energy home in America. My 10KW array sits atop a 3200 sq.ft. residence/business prototype that I designed and built. It contemplates rural Georgia living, with 100% or higher Solar PV output, for no more than $87.50 sq. ft.

Read that again: $87.50 sq. ft. For a POSITIVE energy, recyclable building that can be made of recyclable materials. Half (1600 sq.ft) is living space (2 bdrm, each with built-in, full baths, 100% ADA compliant), the other half is designed for business -- machine shop, farming, etc., and the building is 100% 'artic-foil,' 4' pouch insulated.

Pause here, please and check it out: https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/March122011#5590462479614217570

... That's the GREENEST building in America, with a Solar Foil Ceiling (amps up natural day light), sourced on a FAMILY-OF-FOUR energy-consumption scale (10KW system), for $87.50 a sq.ft. -- LESS than the cost of conventional, negative-energy buildings in nearby cities.

Here's my ceiling, by the way (I got the idea from dopers -- that's the same 'grow-room' foil that they use): https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192/SolarFoilCeiling

(Cont'd next post)
Comment
48 of 51
October 13, 2011
The trade-off? Well, it ain't gonna win no Better Homes & Gardens award. I call it the new, 'neo-industrial look.' And you know it's a new fashion trend in homes -- because I'm doing it :)

I deal in facts, figures, and evidence. All of this I have freely shared. And all of it is designed to change 'mass thinking' -- to prove live, in real time, that near-zero-maintenance (30-50 warranty metal sides/roofing, see it?), virtually burn-proof (low insurance costs!) and hyper-efficient housing (1000 sq. ft. living space cooled by just one 10,000 BTU window unit in a building that sits unshaded in the hot summer sun in South Georgia) can be built for LESS than stick, conventional housing.

My bottom line: Green should, and now does, cost LESS than brown housing.

I'm living it. I'm proving it.

I'm also providing this free to all who ask, most especially Habitat for Humanity, which stick-builds negative energy, high-maintenance (wood needs painting, remember?) homes.

More photos (click from bottom up to see how my 'Positive Energy Farm' has evolved): https://picasaweb.google.com/115162333107690986192

My bottom line: We shop at Wal-Mart for the best price, not for 'the experience.' Solar and Green-builders need to reach the masses on PRICE. Green should cost LESS, not more, than brown housing. And the only trade-off is 'pretty.' A plain kinda guy, that works for me. I'm betting it'll work for Joe Six Pack, too.
Comment
49 of 51
October 14, 2011
The pretty in a purpose built house usually can be overcome with cost, while still getting the energy benefits. If you have enough efficiency and power producing items in the design that will take care of he energy part. After that it is up to brilliant up and coming architects to take care of the rest, which is why when I did the solar home tour on 1 Oct, I was happy to see over twice as many Hampton University students checking out the solar power at my old house and then proceeding over the "The Garden Atrium Houses" which are purpose built net zero houses that while expensive, would make Home & Garden. We have similar electrical bills, but they have a lower heating bill. However, they don't have the historic district stuff getting in the way like I do. If we had an example of a house like yours in my area then we would have all three choices. Low Price New, but not fancy, Fancy, but pricey, and finally Old (built in 1915), but making up for it.
Comment
50 of 51
October 29, 2011
James, just checked out your foil ceiling. You got the right idea. For future reference, they do make rigid insulation with foil covering that would work just as well. Also for those who may dislike the look, the foil can be installed before a conventional ceiling is put in place and it would have the same effect. How crazy is the reflection when a light is turned on? I bet one light bulb would cause the whole room to light up.
Comment
51 of 51
November 5, 2011
Thanks, Thomas. I'd investigated 'rigid insulation with foil covering,' but none had the diamond-diffusion pattern found on my 'grow-room' foil (what high-end dope growers use). That's critical because you want a nice, uniform diffusion of reflected light, and not 'beam-offs.' Also, my goal was to build a positive energy home BELOW the cost of a conventional home, and so this less-costly choice (at the expense of some wrinkles/ripples, hence 'pretty') had to be made. Again, it's the most efficient, recyclable home in America. It produces more power than it consumes. And it costs LESS than a conventional, negative-energy home. Trade-offs thus must be made.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Steve Leone

View Steve Leone's Profile
About: Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California. more »

Advertise With Us

Schneider Electric AltEnergyStocks Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association SolSolution Unirac, Inc. SMA America, LLC Black & Veatch Corporation
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters