Solar and Wind Energy Provide 100% New US Electrical Capacity in September

Kenneth Bossong, SUN DAY Campaign
October 24, 2012 | 14 Comments

According to the latest "Energy Infrastructure Update" report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Energy Projects, 433 MW of new electrical generating capacity was added in the U.S. in September -- all from solar and wind sources. The total consisted of five wind projects totaling 300 MW and 18 solar projects totaling 133 MW.

For the first nine months of 2012, 77 wind projects (4,055 MW), 154 solar projects (936 MW), 76 biomass projects (340 MW), seven geothermal projects (123 MW), 10 water power projects (9 MW), and one waste heat project (3 MW) have come on-line. Collectively, these total 43.8% of all new generating capacity added since the beginning of 2012. By comparison, new natural gas capacity additions since January 1, 2012 totaled 61 projects (4,587 MW) or 36.8% while three new coal projects added 2,276 MW (18.3%). Nuclear and oil represented just 1% and 0.1% of new capacity additions respectively.

The new renewable energy generating capacity added in 2012 represents a 29% increase over the level recorded for the same period in 2011. Renewable energy sources now account for 14.9% of all installed U.S. electrical generating capacity.

The FERC report follows the earlier release of the most recent "Electric Power Monthly" report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which finds that non-hydro renewables accounted for 5.4% of net electrical generation for the first seven months of 2012 — a level nearly double that recorded in 2008. Combined with conventional hydropower, renewable energy sources for the period January 1 - July 31, 2012 accounted for more than 13.0% of net U.S. electrical generation. "These additions understate actual solar capacity gains. Unlike other energy sources, significant levels of solar capacity exist in smaller, non-utility-scale applications - e.g., rooftop solar photovoltaics," according to the EIA.

The remarkable expansion of renewable energy's contribution to the nation's electrical supply reflects continuing declines in costs, the impact of state renewable electricity standards, and the mix of tax and other incentives provided by the federal government, Particularly in light of the declining role of coal and the recent decision to close the Kewaunee nuclear reactor in Wisconsin, proposals to scale back on investments in renewable energy appear to be particularly short-sighted and unwarranted.

Lead image: Solar and wind via Shutterstock

14 Comments

Will Deliver
November 1, 2012

Do we know how much of the added capacity was from Concentrated Solar Thermal plants with thermal storage? These solar plants store heat past sundown to allow electrical generation at night. Thus CSP is a 'dispatchable' generation asset. Dispatchable is better than baseload because it follows demand. Baseload is always on, so it always costs fuel/money whether there is demand or not. Geothermal is another dispatchable asset. The geothermal heat is always there. Demand adjusts the output of the geothermal plant.

ANONYMOUS
November 1, 2012

@coolsolarguy:
All your arguments are based on the assumptions that wind and solar actually save fossil fuel. These reports say they save little and in some instances fossil fuel usage is increased

http://www.thalesresearchinc.com/SvsE.pdf

http://energy.aol.com/2012/03/13/renewable-energy-will-cost-grid-more-mit/

For renewable energy to deliver on its promise it needs to operate in the absence of the firming capacity provided by thermal power plants. The technology has a very long way to go for any of your claims to be valid.

Michael Mayhew
November 1, 2012

The need for base load electric supply is greatly exagerated. The cost of power in the late evening until morning, during the Spring and Fall is virtually valueless; so paying less than 5 cents/kWh for electricity creates a loss of about 60% (3 cents/kWh). Electric energy demand peaks with the long hot summer days, and the majority of a day's electric usage, especially on weekends, is consumed during daylight hours. Thus solar power has literally a natural fit. Around Christmas, the use of Chrismas lights running long hours (often incouraged by electric power industy's promotions) create a highly reducible winter peak demand. Saying, 'wind & solar will more than double the cost of electricity and for nothing in return', is very short sighted. The cost of the baseloaded central power plants, with their spinning reserves, create electricity that costs more then their value, while creating thermal, air and water polution, burning fuels that also created polution streams. There are many unacounted for externalities that range from health issues, healthcare expense, water treatment, to the creation of brownfields, spent fuel and ash clean-up, that are a cost of using fosil and nuclear fuels. The nothing, or close to nothing, that wind and solar power delivers is damage to the environment and the cost of externalities. It provides good jobs and creates reduced need to police the Mddle-east, so it reduces risks and creates well-being. It is a bargain.

ANONYMOUS
November 1, 2012

If it will not work in Germany, it will not work here!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-green01.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1351771440-KE09uXVGWWkyUM6/LSw01g

Wind and solar will more than double the cost of electricity for nothing in return!

Jeff Davis
October 26, 2012

1,000 species per year are being made extinct according to scientists every year from oil/gas pollution. GO Clean Renewable !

Jeff Davis
October 26, 2012

Even if "Capacity Factor" is not high, its a step in the right direction (go visit fukishima, or ask a biologist how many species are being extincted every year from oil/gas pollution). Even coal can be scrubbed clean at central smokestack and because its much cheaper and keeps money in USA instead of bankruptin the country, is still better than gas/oil. Electric cars with NIMH (battery patent for "large Format" batteries held hostage by Texaco / Chevron , was bought from GM in late 90's when the rave review EV1 Electric car was so successful that they not only crushed all 1100 EV1's but also chipped them into little bitty pieces they were so scared the public would catch on to the illegal gas/oil price fixing; You may say that most electric is getting energy from polluting central electric plants but its only 30% as much as 300 million tailpipes and can as said be scrubbed at central smokestack to be cleaner still. SOLAR and WIND have no pollution s this 5% "capacity factor" is a great step Forward !

Bob Wallace
October 26, 2012

Robin, read again. I did not say that " if a power plant can provide cycling or peak load it can provide base load".

I said that we supplied roughly 45% of our electricity needs without any baseload/always on input. If we can cover 45% then we can cover 100%. The need for baseload generation is a myth.

You are right. Wind and solar are not 'always on', they are not dispatchable. What wind and solar are is clean and cheap (solar soon will be) sources of electricity which are available in enormous amounts. The fill-in for when wind and solar are not producing will need to come from dispatchable generation and storage. Initially, more dispatchable and later on more storage.

The $0.05/kWh for wind is a LCOE number which does not include subsidies. It is what it currently costs to produce power, capital expense and operating costs.

Neither the wind nor solar industries feel they need subsidies to survive. They can clearly survive without the subsidy. They need the subsidies for a few more years while they finish growing their ability to install as cheaply as possible. Both are yet to be mature technologies, unlike fossil fuels which continue to be subsidized after 100 years of use.

The subsidy for solar will be reduced from 30% to 10% in 2017. That phase out is already in the works. The problem that the wind industry has continuously had is that the subsidy programs are approved for only a couple of years at a time and then there's a long period in which it is not clear that the subsidies will be extended. That causes great uncertainty and industry disruption.

William Pinsky
October 26, 2012

Robin - Please consider the following:

Ideas on how the US can transition to a renewable energy supply

1. Germany is planning to increase the national share of renewable electricity to 35% in 2020 and 80% by 2050. Within four decades, one of the world's leading economies will be powered almost entirely by wind, solar, biomass, hydro, and geothermal power. See:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/no-nukes-no-problem-germanys-race-for-a-renewable-future??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-May18-2011

2. Germany: New Renewables Near 17% of Electricity Supply in 2010
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011

3. Hidden costs of coal and oil historically omitted when calculating energy costs:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/robert-f-kennedy-jr-must-done-bolster-economy-141540811.html

4. Answers to energy storage questions you raised:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/09/the-political-and-technical-advantages-of-distributed-renewable-power

5. GE Sees Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

6. Japan's push to supply 40 percent of electricity from renewable sources by early 2030s http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-01/sumitomo-sees-solar-bubble-as-japan-rejects-nuclear-energy.html

Rematog - The Original
October 26, 2012

Ok, Bob, what is the logic behind saying that if a power plant can provide cycling or peak load it can provide base load. By definition, base load is on all the time. Wind and Solar are not. They are also not dispatchable. The SYS-OP can't require a solar plant to run at night. You get wind and solar when it is available, which may or may not be when you need it.

$0.05$ per kw-hr is a very competative price. If solar and wind can compete at this price.. great. If that without the $0.022 per kw-hr tax credit that the solar/wind industry seems to feel is critical to it's survival?

What is this subsidy for coal Michael talks about. The only programs I know of (Clean Coal)are research-development for pollution controls. This gives nothing to the operating plants that provide 1/2 this countries power.

I don't foresee any new coal plant's being built. Natural gas combined cycle will be the cycling/base load plant of the near future. Wind and solar can reduce the amount of gas burned, but have to be backed up with gas powered cycling/peaking units.

I feel the renewables tax credit should be reduced in a predicable manner over the next five years, so that the renewables industry is weaned off of it, not just ended cold turkey. If the industry can't compete without it in five years.... then we can wait until it can compete.

Bob Wallace
October 25, 2012

Let's look at "baseload" as it now powers our world.

First half of 2012 we got about 55% of our electricity from coal and nuclear. That means that we got about 45% from non-baseload sources.

Divide demand in two pieces. One piece was serviced by 'always on' sources. Set it aside.

The other very substantial 45% piece had zero always on/baseload generation providing for it. We covered that demand with wind, solar, hydro, gas and storage. If we can cover 45% of demand with 'not always on' generation then we can cover 100% of demand.

Michael Grish
October 25, 2012

If each building generated 60-70% of it's own energy load, then base load generation can be accomplished with renewables. Geothermal and solar can accomplish that right now, without any further development in efficiency. The main obstacle to renewables is the fossil fuel industry, their billions in taxpayer subsidies, and billions in profit spent on advertising and electing pro-industry representatives. It has nothing to do with the ability of renewable energy to accomplish the task. It's a matter of priorities. And right now, making fossil fuel companies rich beyond their wildest dreams is more important than moving to a clean, renewable energy infrastructure.

Bob Wallace
October 25, 2012

For a moment let's set the realized capacity issue aside. Here's the fact of the post - all the capacity added to the grid in September was wind and solar. No coal. No nuclear. And, surprisingly to me, no gas but I expect the lack of any new gas capacity was simply a timing fluke, there will be a lot of gas added for the year.

Realized capacity is important only as it bears on the final cost of electricity and to a much lesser extent the timing of production.

Now, let's go back to "baseload". In the future grid baseload as we know it ('always on' generation) likely won't be a part of the grid except for geothermal and run of the river/ocean-current generation.

Coal and nuclear will not be feasible to operate on a grid dominated by inexpensive wind and solar. Coal and nuclear require huge capital expenditures and have significant operating expenses. The only way for them to make a profit is to run 8,000+ hours per year on full load and sell higher than cost to produce and service loans.

When the grid has wind producing electricity at $0.05/kWh or less half the time and solar producing for $0.05/kWh or a bit more 20% of the time there are no 8,000+ hours in which coal and nuclear can sell for enough to stay in business. Then there is cheap natural gas generation. We're likely to see a nuclear reactor shuttered in the next couple of months because it cannot compete with wind and gas prices.

It matters not that wind and solar "are NOT a good fit for base load generation". All that matters is that we can supply consumers electricity when they want to use it.

We can do that right now with wind, solar, natural gas, hydro, pump-up storage and geothermal - the stuff we are already using and have been using for decades. We just have to build the right mix of components. And as better technology emerges we can phase out the gas and replace it with storage.

Rematog - The Original
October 25, 2012

Note that a MW of renewable capacity is not equal to a MW of coal, gas or nuclear capacity. In the above article, note that it states renewables are 14.9% of capacity, but only deliver 5.4% of net generation.

For coal, gas or nuclear base load plants, capacity factors of between 85% to 95% are expected and routinely achieved. (capacity factor is actual MW-hr generated in a year divided by (rated capacity x 8,760 hrs/year). For solar, capacity factors are in the range of 20-22%.

So, even if dirt cheap energy storage (much hand waving) were possible, we would need to build renewables of TRIPLE the current installed coal/gas/nuclear capacity to replace it. And I've not heard of any technology for dirt cheap energy storage. Say, 12,000 MH-hr of capacity per base load unit replaced (600 MW capacity for 20 hours). How many batteries is 12 Billion Watt-hours?

Note, in above, by gas plant I am referring to combined cycle units. Simple cycle gas turbines are peaking units and do have much lower capacity factors. In areas with high air conditioning loads, solar is a very good fit for mid-day peaking load to limit fuel (gas) burn in peaking units. But you still have to install the gas peakers, in case of clouds, night time load issues, etc.

But my point is the renewables are NOT a good fit for base load generation.

Bob Wallace
October 24, 2012

The New York Times has a very interesting article about how the low price of wind and natural gas generation is causing problems for the nuclear industry and why reactors in addition to Kewaunee may be forced to close.

Large repair bills such as what Crystal River and San Onofre face may make it unprofitable to bring broken reactors back into service.

"Even plants with no pressing repair problems are feeling the pinch, especially in places where wholesale prices are set in competitive markets. According to an internal industry document from the Electric Utility Cost Group, for the period 2008 to 2010, maintenance and fuel costs for the one-fourth of the reactor fleet with the highest costs averaged $51.42 per megawatt hour.

That is perilously close to wholesale electricity costs these days."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/economics-forcing-some-nuclear-plants-into-retirement.html?_r=1

With solar PPAs now being signed for less than $0.10/kWh nuclear has an even larger problem on its hands. The 'hours of profit' are shrinking.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Kenneth Bossong

Ken Bossong is the Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as cost-effective alternatives to nuclear...