Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Can Renewable Energy Survive in the U.S.?

By Barry Stevens, Contributor
October 25, 2011   |   27 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

27 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 27
October 25, 2011
In some locations once the utilities install Smart Meters and bill on Time of Use, homeowners will realize the wisdom of going solar
Comment
2 of 27
October 25, 2011
Of course everyone just ignores climate change. We should set a goal of 100% carbon free by 2040, which is going to mean a massive shift in priorities.
Comment
3 of 27
October 26, 2011
Does the estimated $1.25 cost per watt for a gas-fired power station include the cost of fuel over the expected 25-year lifetime of an equivalent PV generating station? How about a comparison of 25-year maintenance costs for the two types of generating capacity?

I might add that a fair comparison would add power transmission losses (of the order of 5-15%) for the gas-fired station as opposed to zero for distributed PV.
Comment
4 of 27
October 26, 2011
Barry writes, "At the end of the day, a solar farm will cost "all in" about $3.25 per watt, best case. A gas-fired electricity power generation plant will cost south of $1.25 per watt. Therefore, a utility that is not faced with gross penalties for using conventional fuels will generally install new capacity with gas."

True only for the utility unable to recognize what is going on with natural gas supply. The present so-called glut will rapidly disappear once the O&G industry begins exporting it as LNG to higher-priced markets.

Whereas the $3.25/W solar panel will produce power over the next 25 year at $0.0424 per kW (35% availability), the NG plant has its amortized costs and the cost of fuel.

The reason for the rapid growth in gas-fired power plants has little to do with their economy since they are extremely inefficient. It's all about their ability to respond quickly to meet peak loads at a moment's notice. That is when they can be most profitable.

Barry then writes, "Let's not criticize the power company for using inexpensive fossil-fuels."

Why is that? Those fuels are inexpensive only to them. We help keep those costs low with out taxpayer subsidies the O&G regardless of how much of their energy we use. In addition, we are paying as they externalize their costs of disposing of their waste in our atmosphere. Healthcare and climate-change mitigation costs are two of the more obvious ways.
Comment
5 of 27
October 26, 2011
I agree with Cliff. I think this is a terribly misleading article. To not factor in the future costs of natural gas is, well, misleading at best.
Comment
6 of 27
October 26, 2011
Just came back from SPI in Dallas. Amazing array of renewable technology on display.
I had a connecting flight from Houston to Dallas and back to Houston before flying on to LA and then back to Portland. I hate to think of how much oil we burned just to get me there and back but that's another issue,although directly related to what I'm about to say.

As I flew from Houston to Dallas there was not a single spot on the ground that was not covered with massive,glowing lights. From horizon to horizon it was the same. I began to think of how much fossil fuel was being burned to produce that many mega watts? I then started to think of how much of that energy was simply wasted. Wasted on poor lighting,excess lighting etc etc.

I saw the same massive glow of lights when over Phoenix and most of the LA basin. I then thought that even if all the energy used during sunlight hours was generated by solar,you would still need all that fossil fuel just to keep this glowing mass of energy consumption going at night. Expensive assets used only half the day??

It's at times like these when a thinking person begins to question the sanity of how we live. How out of step and unsustainable most of what we call civilization really is. Until we all begin to question the basic assumptions we have,that trying to keep this dying animal alive with massive infusions of new solar energy,may not be the best choice.Perhaps we all need to begin thinking of a lifestyle where allot of our current reality goes away. Can it be done? Don't know? Of course it will never happen if we keep thinking the current reality is sustainable and healthy. An old Indian chief was asked by a 19th century reporter what he thought of the white man. He stated 'Very smart' 'Not very wise'

A time machine back to the 18th century. I'm flying the same space. Only a few scattered camp fires. Advanced 21st century? Backward,primitive 18th century? Only time will tell.
Comment
7 of 27
October 26, 2011
The renewable energy industry is so much bigger than the US. While we probably won't take a decisive leadership roll in technology development and local RE job creation anytime soon, we will continue to benefit from falling product costs regardless of what incentives we put in place. Of course renewable energy will survive in the US because the cost trajectory of solar PV is going to crush fossil fuels faster than most of us think. For the most part, it won't be US products that we will be installing though.
Comment
8 of 27
October 26, 2011
Part of the equation to mitigate Climate Change is Conservation. Without getting into a discussion about war, the Libyan conflict with the combustion turbine air support added thousands of tons of Green House Gases to the atmosphere.

Much of the outdoor lighting in today's civilization is to deter crime.

A typical simple cycle gas turbine has an efficiency of 35-40%. A combine cycle gas turbine power plants that uses the waste exhaust heat for steam can achieve efficencies of 60%. By integrating solar direct steam components, efficencies of 70% can be achieved. The latter is research being conducted outside the US and I can't disclose any more, but thermal solar cannot become any more economic than integrating solar components into a existing fossil fuel facility
Comment
9 of 27
October 26, 2011
Natural gas fired combined-cycle plants are about 55% efficient, can be built in about 2 years and are cheap to build. Nothing else comes even close. That is why the such power plants are preferred by utilities.

Can renewable energy compete with the natural gas power plants? Nope, it's not even a contest, particularly when subsidies for renewable energy dry-up (F.Y.I. the Feds are out of money).

From a strictly financial standpoint, there is no market for renewable energy, absent contivance by the government.
Comment
10 of 27
October 26, 2011
Notice how everyone hones in on the numbers. This is real progress. It used to be that solar people tried to skirt past the numbers because the economics were so bad we had to pretend they didn't matter. I like these numbers because what it tells us is that the installed cost of a solar farm is only 2-3 times more expensive than a natural gas based electricity power station in terms of up front capital cost. That is pretty amazing. Obviously this number hasn't factored in the longer term maintenance costs differences or the environmental costs which we all agree shift the numbers into solar's favor. Its far better to show these numbers and face them head on with courage than it is to hide from the fact that solar electricity even after rebates is still not better than a 10 year payback in California where PV costs are lowest, electricity prices highest and solar availability highest. The last customer I helped interpret his solar quotes was looking at a 13 year simple payback. That's pretty good. I'd be all over it at that number. My point is that we need credibility. We need to admit the truth about the numbers because then and only then can we start to complicate the numbers by adding in environmental cost, long term maintenance because then and only then can we move solar forward.

One day we'll wake up and realize that subsidies aren't the answer. The environmental cost needs to be in there somewhere and the only way that makes any sense is a carbon tax. We have to pay more for fossil fuel and until that happens solar will be up and down and slow to progress into the inevitable future.
Comment
11 of 27
October 26, 2011
Keller, that's simply not true. NGCC plants are far more expensive than conventional combustion thermal NG plants. And how is it that you choose to ignore the cost of fuel.

Can natural gas power plants compete with renewable energy? Nope, not without a continued externalization of their costs onto the environment and the taxpayer.
Comment
12 of 27
October 26, 2011
Some of the large thermal solar plants being constructed today have a capacity factor of 26-31% on solar. I wouldn't refer to them as solar plants. They use an inefficient gas boiler or thermal storage to operate at other hours. Thermal storage requires an oversized solar field to collect the additional energy and the cost of the thermal storage is an extra cost. It makes more sense to add solar components to an existing fossil facility than fossil components to a solar facility.
Comment
13 of 27
October 26, 2011
The one great invention the world needs is a means to economically store electrical energy. Until then fossil fuels will be part of the energy mix.
Comment
14 of 27
October 26, 2011
Cliff,
Please provide your source for claiming a thermal natural gas plant (basically a boiler and steam turbine with a ~35% efficiency) is cheaper to build than a combined cycle plant (~55$ efficiency). There is no technical or economic reason to build a thermal natural gas plant as the combined-cycle plant is a superior choice. As near as I can tell, hundreds of combined-cycle plants have been build over the last decade or so, versus zero for natural gas thermal plants.

Your claim that renewable energy is more competitive than a combined-cycle plant is simply not true.

PS Solar costing 2 or 3 times the build cost of natural gas (combined-cycle) represents only part of the economics story. You also have to consider capacity factors (how often the plant runs) as well as reliability. That is where renewable energy has major problems, causing serious issues with the investment.
Comment
15 of 27
October 26, 2011
Some people are taking the levelized cost per megawatt of a simple cycle gas turbine used only for PEAKING to compare with the cost of solar
Comment
16 of 27
October 26, 2011
Keller,

Please see: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html Table 1. I was speaking of combined cycle vs. a simpler, less-efficient, stand-alone gas turbine. It is not clear what type of NG plant Barry was referring to. Barry?

You wrote, "You also have to consider capacity factors (how often the plant runs) as well as reliability."

I did that earlier when I stated the 4.24 cents/kW cost - 35% availability. Admittedly that simple calculation ignored the cost of money but the same burden would apply to all such energy investments. Can you beat that with your NG plant when you include the fuel cost and maintenance? How will you fare when solar costs drop to $2.00/W and NG prices double?
No image available
Comment
17 of 27
Anonymous
October 26, 2011
For v-bruce-stenswick-62270 and 100% carbon free by 2040 what will the world be like without carbon?

Please explain?
Comment
18 of 27
October 26, 2011
Keller, I thought you might be interested in the following story:

RPT-Cheniere and BG ink $8 bln deal to export US LNG http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/26/lng-cheniere-idUSN1E79P0N120111026

'NEW YORK, Oct 25 (Reuters) - BG Group will export liquefied
natural gas from the United States under a landmark $8 billion deal with Cheniere Energy that will allow domestic producers to ship bountiful shale gas supplies to the world for the first time.' ....

'Under the deal, which could help reverse the fortunes of the troubled Houston-based company, Cheniere will sell 3.5 million tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas to BG for 20 years from its proposed export plant in Sabine Pass, Louisiana.' ...

'Five projects across the United States and two in western Canada have applied for construction and export licenses, seeking long term deals predominantly with buyers in Asia where prices are four times higher than those in the United States.'

It's a global economy Keller. Can you blame them for grabbing such opportunities for profit. US gas extracted at the expense of the US environment and water supply will now go to the global highest bidder. How well will your NG plant fare compared to solar, wind, marine current, or wave power when its fuel costs quadruple?
Comment
19 of 27
October 27, 2011
Cliff,
So how does your solar energy fare in the dead of winter in the Midwest? Not so good. But solar does OK where the sun shines a lot. The point: renewable energy should be used where it makes sense, but it is not a universal solution.

Thermal power plants are about 35% efficient while combined-cycle plants are roughly around 50% to 55%. The "J" series combined-cycle plants being introduced are touted as approaching 61% LHV (55% HHV) new, which is more like 54% real world.

Much higher efficiencies are possible when combined-cycle plants are used in Combined Heat & Power (CHP) applications. However such plants are relatively rare in the US because not too many places are near hosts that need steam heat or chilled water. In the world of power plants, 55% is highly efficient.

The "all-in" cost of power is normally calculated in $/MWh and includes debt repayment, fuel, maintenance, etc (fixed & variable) costs. Repayment of the debt becomes a significant factor for plants that cost a lot to build (e.g. nuclear). Typically, fuel is about 70% of the "all-in" cost of a combined-cycle plant. The plants are pretty good investments when used to follow daily load changes because the power price is relatively flat throughout the load range. However, triple the price of natural gas and the economics become crap. But as fuel is largely a pass-thru, not really a problem from a utility's viewpoint.

The relatively high cost to build solar and relatively limited hours of operation cause the power price needed to make a profit to be high and uncompetitive. Hence the cry for subsidies.
Comment
20 of 27
October 27, 2011
In general, simple cycle gas turbines are used a peaking units and combined cycles as base load. In general Combined Cycle efficiencies are over 50 percent on a lower heating value and Gross Output basis. Most combined cycle units, especially the larger units, have peak, steady state efficiencies of 55 - 59%. GE reports their Flexefficency combined cycle gas turbine's has achieved efficiencies of 61%. Siemens also claims to have broken the 60% efficiency for combined cycle. GE's FlexEfficiency's CCGT when combined with solar as an Integrated Solar Combined Cycle achieves efficiencies to 70% from 61%. Almost all of this R&D is being performed outside the US and will be avaiable within the next few years.
Comment
21 of 27
October 27, 2011
According to an Energy Information Administration study based on 2008 data, the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 a megawatt hour, $23.37 that year for wind, 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power.
Comment
22 of 27
October 27, 2011
Keller, you wrote, "So how does your solar energy fare in the dead of winter in the Midwest?"

Not well. Thank goodness for the wind turbines. They love winter in the Midwest. Offshore they are happy all year round.

You wrote, "But as fuel is largely a pass-thru, not really a problem from a utility's viewpoint."

Bingo! That is exactly the problem. Utilities are making decisions based on today's NG prices and not looking at the handwriting on the wall. But who cares, right. Once these dinosaurs are built, their crappy long-term economics have to be eaten by the ratepayer. Alas, that's life in a nation with an energy policy crafted by O&G.

robtemery, most people realize those EIA dirty-energy subsidy statistics are the tip of the iceberg.
Comment
23 of 27
October 27, 2011
Regarding Clee's comment: I don't dispute EIA statistics, I use them myself. I used the term "in general" because in my experience I have never seen a combined cycle used as a peaker. But I realize there are areas where natural gas is not cheaper or predominate fuel.

Cliff, there are many who have been informed different. I am an advocate of solar but I won't embellish what it can do or can't do. I believe we must do something about Climate Change, but there's more to it more than subsidizing a few RE plants.
Comment
24 of 27
October 27, 2011
Clee: I live in Southern California where the local utility receives its power from Bureau of Reclamation hydro, combined cycle gas turbine, Geo-thermal and additional power purchased from four corners which is produced from coal. If additional power is required above that, simple cycle units are pressed into service. The utility refers to their combined cycle gas turbines as Base Load units and operated at max possible, but demand fluctuates.

My area of expertise is Independent Renewable Energy, not utility operations. As an Independent Power producer my objectives are to produce the maximum megawatts possible and as efficiently as possible pursuant to the PPA and leave load following to the utility.
Comment
25 of 27
November 3, 2011
Most everyone on this blog can crunch the numbers - at least for their respective regions. We have presented hundreds of solar installations with very few becoming reality.

Renewables will certainly survive and flourish in the coming years - as the price of petroleum rises, so will the cost of NG and coal.

All forms of renewables will continue to improve in their efficiencies and longevity, though I believe their costs will not drop, but rather will generally increase in future years due to mineral extraction and refining costs.

Germany is making it work - we could also if the public desire, which is based on public awareness, was where it should be. Sad really - the U.S. has become a nation of reality TV viewers.
Comment
26 of 27
November 3, 2011
Few people, RE advocates and critics alike consider the game changing effects that advanced transmission projects, such as the Tres Amigas electric superstation / hub, will have on the advancement and modernization of the entire US electric power generation and transmission markets.

Power generation majors such as Duke are moving to break the current bottlenecks in both conventional and RE power generation markets by constructing and advocating massive changes in the US transmission systems. The movement towards both HVDC and superconducting transmission systems will effectively tie the entire US grid together into a seamless network.

This transition is happening behind the scenes and when it does, the issues of intermittency and energy storage will virtually vanish for RE markets. Imagine the scenario where as power demand begins to rise on the eastern seabord at 6 PM and local PV generation subsides that PV generation output from the midwest and western seabord is beginning to peak.

There are many more scenarios like this that will begin to unfold that will benefit power generation markets, both conventional and RE.
Comment
27 of 27
November 4, 2011
Thanks, Joseph - Fascinating.

See: http://tresamigasllc.com/index.php
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

Barry Stevens

View Barry Stevens's Profile
About: An American scientist, author, business developer and entrepreneur in renewable energy and technology-driven enterprises; Founder of TBD America Inc., a technol... more »

Advertise With Us

Alpha Technologies Asia Solar Expo Brightergy Canadian Solar Inc. Delta Rigging & Tools AREDAY WindPole Ventures, LLC
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