The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

The Future of Electricity Markets

As solar and wind energy grow in market share, electricity markets will need to change.

Toby D. Couture, IFOK GmbH and Dr. David Jacobs, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
February 18, 2013  |  41 Comments

British philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead once wrote "fundamental progress has to do with the reinterpretation of basic ideas."

If recent trends are any indication, such a re-evaluation is imminent if not already underway in many electricity markets around the world, a process that could have wide ranging implications for the world’s most capital intensive sector.

Two related processes are driving these changes: first, the move toward more competitive electricity markets; and second, the growth of renewable energy sources, namely wind and solar.

While these two processes have unfolded in parallel over the past few decades, there are signs that a deeper convergence may be underway. From capacity markets to energy storage, smart grids to demand response, electricity systems are already beginning to show signs of change; however, the most fundamental changes may be required in the basic design of electricity markets themselves. 

Theory

Due to the fact that renewable energy technologies like solar and wind power have little to no marginal cost, they represent a significant departure from fossil-based power plants. As a result, when wind farms and solar plants are located in liberalized markets, they typically bid into the spot market at zero (sometimes less); this strategy helps ensure that their electricity gets purchased whenever the wind blows, or the sun shines.

One of the consequences of this is that as the share of renewable electricity with zero marginal cost in the overall mix grows, renewable energy sources actually push spot market prices down since power plants with higher short-term marginal costs are no longer needed to meet demand.

In the absence of clear power purchase agreements (PPAs), bilateral contracts, or feed-in tariffs, this entails significant risks for investors. To date, most RE capacity in the world has been financed with one of these three mechanisms and has therefore remained largely sheltered from spot market fluctuations. And yet,  a moment’s thought will quickly reveal that in a liberalized market, as soon as RE technologies start to represent a sizeable share of the market, RE producers quickly begin to undermine their own revenues.

This is a point often only dimly appreciated by economists and regulators, who are inclined to focus on how electricity markets should work in theory, rather than how they work in practice.

Practice

To draw on an example, consider Germany. Due to feed-in tariffs that guarantee a minimum price (in what amounts to a de facto PPA), Germany has seen a surge of renewable energy development since the early 2000s. The consequences of this surge in zero marginal cost power have been clear: electricity prices during the summer on Germany’s  spot  market are often lower during the day than they are during the evening, as the large influx of solar power (approximately 32 GW as of Q4:2012) enters the grid. (The same has occurred with wind power in the north of the country).

Figure 1: Profile of Electricity Supply in Germany, May 21st – 27th 2012. 

Source: Fraunhofer ISE, EEX

During the week of May 21, 2012, solar PV produced over 1.1TWh of electricity, representing approximately 18 percent of total electricity demand in Germany over the same period, and supplying almost 50 percent of instantaneous electricity demand during certain hours of the day.

While producers are paid mostly via 20-year feed-in tariffs, the electricity they produce is now mostly sold on the spot market, marketed by the system operator. Unsurprisingly, this has a profound impact on spot market prices, both inside and outside  Germany’s  borders due to European grid interconnections.

The graph below provides a snapshot of price evolution and supply dynamics on a typical summer day in Germany. 

Figure 2: Electricity Supply Profile and Spot Market Prices    

Source: Photon GmbH 2012

As can be seen on the right axis, the spot market price dropped to EUR 20/MWh (USD $27/MWh) during the middle of the day when the sun was shining.

The implications of this are profound: if the German market truly were fully liberalized (i.e. if there were no long-term PPAs or feed-in tariffs), this would have wrenching consequences for renewable energy producers — they would effectively become victims of their own success. RE projects would collectively push electricity prices down, and in the process, they would inadvertently push themselves below their debt service requirements, and into insolvency.

In the absence of a supportive policy framework, this “negative network externality” would bring the RE market to a halt, and make it next to impossible to obtain financing for electricity projects, whether fossil-based or renewable. In the longer term, it would be next- to-impossible to transition towards electricity markets with high penetrations of renewable energy such as solar and wind (which remains the objective in Germany and in many other jurisdictions around the world — indeed, scenarios up to 80 percent have been modeled and deemed technically feasible by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in the U.S.).

The absence of such a framework for fossil plants is already prompting many in the industry to push for some form of price support for natural gas plants, as many realize that projects are simply not bankable without them. A similar debate is playing out in the UK, as the latter attempts to develop price supports for nuclear and other forms of generation.

This points to a deeper tension within the current debates about the future of electricity markets: investing in generation assets in liberalized markets requires some form of price support to provide the revenue certainty required. Failing that, investments are likely to grind to a halt, primarily because of the sector’s high capital intensity.

Thus, the liberalization underway in many jurisdictions may end up having undesirable consequences: by largely doing away with long-term contracts, they have begun to undermine the basic conditions required to ensure that investments in electricity generation assets are sustained.

Tellingly, the absence of long-term contracts in countries like Chile is what has prevented it from seeing virtually any investment in renewable energy in recent decades, despite the fact that it is blessed with among the world’s best renewable energy resources: the geographic conditions are present, but the institutional ones are not.

Solutions?

Current attempts to solve this problem for conventional power plants are focused primarily on developing forward capacity markets, as has been done in certain markets such as the PJM region of the U.S. northeast. While this solution may help improve reliability, it is a partial solution at best. As it stands, there are currently no credible, long-term solutions for incorporating high proportions of renewable energy into existing electricity markets.

Thus, a new market design for the electricity system is likely to be required in the decades ahead. As Whitehead suggested, this is likely to require a fundamental reconsideration of some very basic ideas, including ideas about grid parity, about the role and function of spot markets, and about what role price signals should play in the supply, demand, and allocation of this essential resource.

Finally, it is important to underscore that this is not (or at least, should not be) an ideological debate about free-markets vs. regulation: it is, at root, a debate about institutions, and about how best to sustain the flow of capital to one of the world’s most critical sectors.

Toby D. Couture, MA, MSc. is Director of Renewable Energy at IFOK GmbH in Berlin.

Dr. David Jacobs is a research associate at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam and lecturer at the Freie Universität Berlin.

41 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
February 23, 2013
There has been no mention of demand management as an alternative or supplement to energy storage. Many end uses of electricity can tolerate short term interruptions. For example, a 10% decrease in air conditioning or hot water heating capacity is tolerable.

Thermal storage for cooling or heating end use has been mentioned in one post but not discussed further. Like demand management, it is cheaper than electrical storage. Some businesses with high peak electricity rates use off-peak cooling systems to essentially make ice at night for cooling purposes during the next day when rates are high.

Also, air conditioning load and on-site PV power are correlated. This would lessen the need for energy storage. Air conditioning load due to building heat ingress is correlated with local wind speed. Residential and commercial AC represents about 10% of the annual US grid load and is the prime cause of the summer peak grid load when it represents about 25% of the national electricity during July and August.

In summary, RE will change the nature of the grid but other forms of energy storage than electrical storage will hasten this change. LED, and perhaps OLED, lighting will also effect the grid since light is about 15 to 20% of the grid load. More efficient lighting will also lessen a building's AC load.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 22, 2013
Maury,

"Ahhh, you need to spend some more Google on this one. Check it out: if I burn gasoline in a turbine, ship that power to my home, use that to recharge my car, and then drive, that cycle is TWICE as efficient as burning it in my car. That's right, twice!"

But it ain't green.

Gas is made from petroleum. Petroleum is a fossil fuel.

If you go 100 times as far, you ain't green.

Were I to burn Mark Twain's mummies in my car, I would be green. Not nice but green. [Mark Twain reported seeing locomotives of the Trans-Egypt Railroad fueled by mummies bought "by the ton or graveyard" in Innocents Abroad. Deniers deny but that is what they do. There is some contemporary documentation.]

Hard to find mummies hereabouts and if I could, it would be hard to fit one in any conceivable car fuel tank.

But dried, disintegrated municipal sewage would work fine in a rankine cycle engine as would anything else. I doubt there is any shortage of municipal sewage.

Here is a purty pitcher you don't even have to google:

http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=322155&vid=5

I had my greasy paws on another racer that ended up with a different engine after years of delay.

This one is s'posed to be on the road this month. May be next month or next year or next decade or never but they are coming.

That's green.

Municipal sewage is generated daily in great quantities. Nobody needs to plant, cultivate, fertilize or harvest it. It does have to be squoze and disintegrated and poured in the fuel tank. Anything else that burns works too.

Best, Terry
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 22, 2013
"I was just doing some nitpicking as is my wont. Nits do get annoying to some of us idiots."

Hey, join the club. It's a big one, and we get to drink a lot.

"The Niagara Falls reference was meant to demonstrate that run-of-river power, notably in Canada, can be quite massive though seasonality makes it intermittent"

Oh definitely. The reports I've read suggest that something on the order of 30 to 50% of the total *real* capacity is available in hydrodynamics. In particular, many of the larger rivers in the west have Three-Gorges levels of capacity, *each*.

BUT… the thing is that hydrodynamics remains unproven in the large scale. Dams and turbines, for all their downsides, have a pretty good history going back a couple of millennia. While I'm quite excited about many of the new techs coming on stream, I don't like to put them in posts because I expect to receive arguments about non-existent tech.

This is especially important if you consider some of the "new nuclear" arguments. Over the last 50 years we've seen large nukes, small nukes, mini-nukes, breeders, pebble bed, TWRs, energy multipliers, thorium and of course, fusion. None of these are being used.

I don't want to be caught in the same trap, so I try to talk about what's out there *now*.

"Exactly my point. Electric cars aren't green."

Ahhh, you need to spend some more Google on this one. Check it out: if I burn gasoline in a turbine, ship that power to my home, use that to recharge my car, and then drive, that cycle is TWICE as efficient as burning it in my car. That's right, twice!

Maybe I should do that article…
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 21, 2013
Maury,

I'm not communicating well but there is now way fossil fuel is green.

>"When your hybrid plugin auto runs out of juice"

It's a *hybrid*. I'd fill up the gas tank.<

Exactly my point. Electric cars aren't green. There are vehicles that burn no fossil fuels, that do not depend on coal-burning power plants for electricity and every car built today could be the same after the usual massive disruption. But folks would rather not know.

The video was at a link that I followed from your report. Maybe I blundered somehow or your link was faulty. It was not on topic.

The Niagara Falls reference was meant to demonstrate that run-of-river power, notably in Canada, can be quite massive though seasonality makes it intermittent - as is Niagara Falls. Flow varies and there is no dam to level the effect. Some would undoubtedly call beaver dams run-of-river but dammed rivers are dammed, dammit.

I was just doing some nitpicking as is my wont. Nits do get annoying to some of us idiots.

You have a most interesting claim and I applaud you for it.

I can't endorse it because I know far less than I pride myself on knowing (like all humans) but most certainly do not deny your claim.

Best, Terry
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 21, 2013
"So would you scrap Canada's half of the small-scale run-of-river power"

I stated that *if* you built out the *remaining* large stuff we'd have power to burn.

There's certainly no implication anywhere that I believe we shouldn't build out anything else, let alone *scrap* anything.

"When your hybrid plugin auto runs out of juice"

It's a *hybrid*. I'd fill up the gas tank.

"Great video"

Video?
Nova Scotia Doug
Nova Scotia Doug
February 21, 2013
...to ramble on some more----------------Hydrogen is not a dream, the single biggest consumption industry for hydrogen is Oil refineries, hydrogen is used in food processing, steel making,,,and tons of other processes, how can you say hydrogen is a dream Byran??? ....Ballard Power has sold well over one million fuel cells......you want solutions to variable renewables , they exist, and storing hydrogen can also capture pollution as I explained, what is that worth to our air quality alone, plus if we are not capturing it now, once the equipment to capture it is paid for , the surplus makes it free energy again....perception Bryan....A Bleach plant in California used to have to deal with amonia (NH3) as a by-product, they bought the reforming equipment and fuel cells, they will save over half a million dollars in power costs peryear...so that stored energy is free and actually it is worth the net costs saved!.........Bryan..why would we need to store energy for weeks and months --- is the world not about 'lean management' and efficient processes?...but anyway tanks of free hydrogen will be full for years if we are too dumb to use it...does that make things any clearer?...if not think about it...no waste, no air pollution, no uranium mining, no nuclear catastrophic risks...it should be a no brainer!!
Nova Scotia Doug
Nova Scotia Doug
February 21, 2013
@ Byran-Leland...per low cost storage.--- Low cost storage is a variable cost that realizes ROI in several ways...and much of this is about perception and being able to identify what true costs really are...most of you can think for yourselves so I'll expect you to read between the lines...I expect Byran will jsut counter with some denial spin and quote numbers that truly miss the point....Enbridge has partnered with Hydrogenics of Canada to place hydrogen reforming equipment within strategic locations of the power grid....what the utilities realize is that they can' lean out the extra electricity' that has been generated but could not cycle down as fast as demand dropped so we have energy loss, in the grid on a minute by minute basis...the stored hydrogen can then power fuel cells...so I would say instead of just 'lost energy' once the hydrogen reforming equipment and the fuel cells are paid for ....the remaining savings from storing that 'lost energy' makes it 'FREE energy' which is pretty much as low cost as you can get. -------- the same goes for overbuilding of wind and solar,,, instead of the grid not being able to use the energy as it is created by wind and solar the choice again becomes leave them powering to store hydrogen which again can then be used in fuelcells, so again once the equipment gets paid for then all the enrgy stored is 'free' more lowest cost option....why would we turn off wind and solar when are able to generate, just because demand is not there... so capturing that 'missed energy' makes it free!...more rambling in next post...
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 21, 2013
maurymarkowitz,

"Long and short: if we fully developed all the large-scale hydro in Canada - no run-of-river..."

So would you scrap Canada's half of the small-scale run-of-river power installation at Niagara Falls? [I have a vague recall that Canada shared the power but haven't rechecked for fear I might be wrong and look foolish.] When your hybrid plugin auto runs out of juice, would you push it or keep a handy 1,000 mile cord available for plugging in?

Beyond some niggling details, most interesting claim. Great video.

Best, Terry
Nigel Morris
Nigel Morris
February 21, 2013
@ Bryan-Leyland

In conventional science, computer models are tested against the evidence. If they fail to predict the future accurately, they are not rejected, people ask why, and adjust their theory or the model.

It's both wrong and simplistic to assert baldly, while providing no evidence, that in climate science, the reverse is the case.

Yes, temperature records have been manipulated, and that manipulation needs to be clearly set out and explained. But there are clear and obvious reasons to manipulate temperature records where a nice, long, consistent, widely based, regular temperature record doesn't exist. I think you need to explain why and how the data has been treated with the intention of fitting the results to the ideological answer rather than taking raw data and producing a useable, non-skewed body of information.

Otherwise you risk your views being dismissed as an ideologue denier rather than an objective sceptic.

Making blanket accusations about the whole of the climate scientists and others who believe that the AGW theory is the most likely explanation of the effects of burning gigatonnes of fossil fuels, really does risk your views being written off as pre-conceived propaganda rather than objective and open minded discussion.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 20, 2013
"I sure wouldn't argue with your presumed thesis that the great majority of low hanging fruit has been picked and that is why Mighty River is going far afield."

Luckily we Canucks have it pretty good in this department. We currently get about 51% of our power from hydro (less than NZ I should point out), but there's about the same amount of power undeveloped.

I ran the numbers a while back:

http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/musings-on-a-national-grid/

Long and short: if we fully developed all the large-scale hydro in Canada - no run-of-river, hydrodynamic, mini-hydro, just the big stuff - we'd have all the power we need to run everything we power today, plus all of our cars assuming plug-in-hybrids.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 20, 2013
"People who can't debate the science revert to personal attacks"

Really Bryan, if you're going to try to take the moral high road, you might want to start by distancing yourself from a group who's main contribution to the debate is calling people liars.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 20, 2013
Bryan,

"As I recall, cartographers do not penetrate below the surface. :-)"

My goodness, Bryan, you know less about cartography than I do power engineering. Have you never seen a geologic map? :-)

I admit your experience (could that be with Mighty River?) and knowledge are intimidating but I will soldier on.

I have talked to many people with lengthy experience and deep knowledge of geothermal power and was often surprised at how little they knew of low temperature geothermal power that is vastly underrated in far better opinion than mine.

I sure wouldn't argue with your presumed thesis that the great majority of low hanging fruit has been picked and that is why Mighty River is going far afield.

What gets this ancient heart pumping a little faster and a few synapses short-circuiting is knowledge that there are really exciting developments at the lower end of the scale where the real gold is.

And if I am full of it, that is exciting too. Manure is a great biomass feedstock.

Best, Terry
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
February 20, 2013
Maury
People who can't debate the science revert to personal attacks.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 20, 2013
"In conventional science, computer models are tested against the evidence. If they fail to accurately predict the future, they are rejected."

Anyone who's ever actually worked on computer modelling has alarm bells going off at this point. I know mine were ringing, so I did a little googling.

Brian, as it turns out, is a member of the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", a climate-change denier group. They are funded in part at least by no less than the Heartland Institute.

Brian's name first comes up in a local newspaper article where it was said he was "lobbying business journalists to cover their questioning of climate change science in order to create an illusion of greater disagreement over the science than actually exists".

*sigh*

This would be funny, if it weren't so dangerous. The good news is that the Coalition, so far, has a 100% losing record and has had to pay court costs when they sued NIWA.
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
February 20, 2013
Terry
I am a power systems engineer with 45 years experience of the New Zealand electricity system. I recently worked for the firm that has done more than any other to develop geothermal power in New Zealand. I was in close contact with the geologists and geothermal engineers who have investigated the extent of the resources. I think I can reasonably claim to know what I am talking about.

As I recall, cartographers do not penetrate below the surface. :-)
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 20, 2013
Bryan,

"New Zealand has been a world leader in geothermal energy for many years and much of the potential is now exploited."

And as a cartographer, I know the earth is flat since I spent a large part of a lifetime flatening it. :-)

I agree that New Zealand is a world leader in geothermal but like the U.S., the largest producer of geothermal power of all, the greatest power source of them all has been neglected and often despised.

There is no way New Zealand has done more than scratch the surface.

Best, Terry
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
February 20, 2013
Terry Hallinann
New Zealand is short of storage because it rains and the wind blows in the springtime but both are much less in the autumn and early winter when the electricity demand is at its peak. New Zealand has been a world leader in geothermal energy for many years and much of the potential is now exploited. Geothermal energy is best suited for providing a steady output. For the dry early winter, we have to rely on a single coal-fired station and its coal stockpile.

Nigel Morris
In conventional science, computer models are tested against the evidence. If they fail to accurately predict the future, they are rejected. In climate science, the reverse is the case. Often, if the evidence not does not fit, it is massaged. In New Zealand at least, the temperature record has been heavily massaged until it fits the computer model.
Nigel Morris
Nigel Morris
February 20, 2013
@ Bryan Leyland
The hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming depends on work performed by Arrhenius and others in the 1800s and 1900s, which I think is essentially undisputed. Recently we have developed computer models to try and project the most likely effects of increasing man made CO2 in the atmosphere. However, even petaflop sized models are still gross simplifications of actual climate systems. So, predicting great accuracy over small numbers of years is not expected. But longer term predictions of models are likely to be more accurate.

Even so, any computer model which predicted steady straight line temperature increases would have been flying in the face of observed climate history and factors such as the El Nino/La Nina cycles. So, No, the models did not predict a steady increase in temperature caused by increased levels of man-made carbon dioxide.
You're right, it did not happen, and it wasn't predicted to. The models aren't invalidated. The models did predict fluctuations up and down around a steady trend line formed over decades, as is happening.

Given the very severe effects of global warming set out in the AGW theories and models, I think that the AGW sceptics need to produce a cohesive theory or model which demonstrates that putting gigatonnes of man-made carbon dioxide into the atmosphere does not cause dangerous global warming. So far, I have not seen any peer reviewed AGW sceptic model that demonstrates that business-as-usual is safe. The Null Hypothesis is not to put further gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere unless it is proven very likely safe. The scientific method is that if you can't demonstrate that i.e. the Null Hypothesis, then we should stop doing it.

And No, not everyone agrees that man made CO2 only causes a small amount of global warming. So it may be a bit more polite to have your facts well proven before you include "everyone" in your personal assertions about the effect of man-made CO2.

Cheers.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 20, 2013
Bryan Leyland,

Of all the countries on the planet, few are less in need of storage than New Zealand.

Rotorua, the city built in a volcano, has a boiling hot lake:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rotorua+new+zealand+boiling+lake&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=2bz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=OVklUaXbL42y0QGum4DgAg&ved=0CFAQsAQ&biw=1320&bih=674

This not an arctic lake that boils from the thawing of methane nodules but a lake heated by underground magma.

The place is filled with spectacular volcanic features and a strong smell of sulfur.

So where does Rotorua get its electricity? Mostly from transmission lines bringing in power from coal plants, from wind turbines when the wind is blowing, from dammed water and even a growing presence of long-neglected geothermal power.

New Zealand has long recognized the importance of getting its power from renewable sources and is now recognizing the importance of getting power from baseload renewable power sources.

Best, Terry
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
February 20, 2013
"Please give an example of a low cost efficient electricity storage system that can store thousands of MWh for days weeks or months"

I hope you don't mind me answering for him... right now there is six months of Canada's total electricity use backed up in northern Quebec. It provides storage at about 1.1 cents/kWh. Is that low cost and efficient enough?

Nothing wrong with that. But how many countries have such storage? We need a solution that will work anywhere there is a huge concentration of wind and solar. Like a desert or flat N Germany. New Zealand is 65% hydro and has three weeks storage. Many primarily hydro countries are in a similar situation.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 20, 2013
"According to the Department of energy, solar power costs more than USD2000/kW."

Large ground mount systems are going in at that price now. Small rooftop systems are around $4.50. At that range, panels in Mohave make power for somewhere between 5 and 15 cents/kWh. Right now the IEOB pays Darlington somewhere between 5.5 and 6.5 cents/kWh for nuclear here in Ontario (I can *just* about see the plant out my window).

The big difference, of course, is that PV is providing peak power. It doesn't compete with nuclear, which is baseload, but gas peakers. Depending on the duty cycle, NG peakers produce power at prices between 7 and 25 cents/kWh, so PV is certainly competitive.

"Nuclear power costs less than the solar equivalent USD18,000/kW. I used USD1000 as an extreme low figure just to show how expensive solar was compared with nuclear."

So you were deliberately trying to be confusing?

Whatever. The duty cycle of systems in the US southwest is on the order of 10 to 15%. The best CANDUs are 85, so 5x. At $2 a watt, that means the equivalent nuclear plant is $10 - but that does not include the fuel. Right now that is a vanishing cost, but in 15 years, the time needed to bring on new plants, it is highly unlikely that will still be true.

"Solar costs to not include transmission that, if the solar farms are in desert areas, can be very high."

The same is true of nuclear as well, of course. And after two full meltdowns, I don't think you'll be seeing new nuclear closer to the load than PV.

"Please give an example of a low cost efficient electricity storage system that can store thousands of MWh for days weeks or months"

I hope you don't mind me answering for him... right now there is six months of Canada's total electricity use backed up in northern Quebec. It provides storage at about 1.1 cents/kWh. Is that low cost and efficient enough?
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
February 20, 2013
Maurymarkowitz:
According to the Department of energy, solar power costs more than USD2000/kW. Nuclear power costs less than the solar equivalent USD18,000/kW. I used USD1000 as an extreme low figure just to show how expensive solar was compared with nuclear. Solar costs to not include transmission that, if the solar farms are in desert areas, can be very high.

Nova-Scotia-doug
Please give an example of a low cost efficient electricity storage system that can store thousands of MWh for days weeks or months. Because that is what is needed for large-scale wind and solar power to provide a significant amount of total electricity. If you over build with wind and solar, the expense becomes enormous. Somebody has to pay for all that overcapacity. Hydrogen is still a dream and will not store huge amounts of energy. In stream a tidal turbines store nothing. Hydro schemes store a little – partly because the greenies restrict lake level and flow changes.

Bob-M-73975
The highest radiation levels experienced by anyone at Fukushima are less than the levels of natural radiation experienced by people in France and in Iran. The United Nations commission on the effects of nuclear radiation has just confirmed this. No one will die from radiation from Fukushima – now or in the future. Not far from Fukushima, a dam burst during the earthquake and killed seven people. 25,000 people were killed in the tsunami. These are real dead people! One dam failure (Banquio) in China killed 25,000 people immediately and more than 100,000 from starvation subsequently.

Nigel-Morris-167490.
The hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming depends entirely on computer models. The computer models predicted a steady increase in temperature caused by increased levels of man-made carbon dioxide. It did not happen. Therefore we can be sure that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause DANGEROUS global warming. Everyone agrees that it probably causes a small amount.
Troy Wilsey
Troy Wilsey
February 20, 2013
@dimitar-mirchev-14630

Curves in the second link you posted do a nice job to show how Rooftop Solar PV in Germany is reducing peak demand 2012 vs. 2008.
Dimitar Mirchev
Dimitar Mirchev
February 20, 2013
All of this is in the "in front ?? the metter" case and is only about the RE capacities that sell their electircity to the market.

However there is another incoming RE and home storage revolution - behind the metter as it is described in these articles:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/ubs-boom-in-unsubsidised-solar-pv-flags-energy-revolution-60218

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/macquarie-says-rooftop-solar-juggernaut-is-unstoppable-40618

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rooftop-solar-reshapes-energy-market-in-south-australia-18272

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-solar-pv-without-subsidies-is-a-no-brainer-for-households-49391
Douglas Short
Douglas Short
February 20, 2013
Mr. Couture and Dr. Jacobs - Very good article. There are similar points in my recent article German Rooftop Solar Juggernaut Is Unstoppable (http://exasconsulting.com/blog/german-rooftop-solar-juggernaut-is-unstoppable/). The types of disruptions you see are an indication of the true economic costs that customers wore as a result of a regulatory regime that guaranteed cost recovery. In obvious retrospect, competitive market PPAs were priced far too low given non-captive customers and changing technology. Simply put, uncertainty is more expensive than we usually believe. While people generally do not like change and disruption, I think that is where we are headed with our electric system. It will become more unreliable as we lack generation to meet demand when adequate renewables are not available; prices will increase dramatically in these periods. (This is already happening in Australia where some 5 minute periods have prices over $13,000/MWh AUD.) But, these changes will reflect the costs of providing these services and will provide opportunities for companies to provide solutions, and the higher prices can make new technologies more cost-effective. If the governments step in to subsidize prices, either through direct ownership or investment guarantees, the likely ultimate result will still be higher prices. The more the government manipulates the market, the less economic-driven it becomes and the more types of producers lobby for subsidies (see U.K. gas and nuclear generators). We probably would have been better off with the simplest intervention, a very high carbon tax and letting the market sort it out. Since this is almost impossible to enact, however, we have gone down the hole of special subsidies.
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 20, 2013
Hi Nigel Morris,

There is no question the authors only address what the intermittent renewables are doing to markets without addressing the folly of preferring intermittent renewable energy for development.

Biomass is hardly the only baseload renewable. Clearly the most abundant of all energy sources is geothermal. Low temperature geothermal power is the most neglected and can be the least expensive without the lengthy development time of conventional geothermal power.

With breakthroughs in technology, the dividing line between ground source heat and generation of electricity has become increasingly indistinct.

Even biomass power generally shows preference for agriculture interests over simply utilizing waste, that gives you two-fer. Europeans and others are far better at utilizing waste for power and heat.

Best, Terry
Troy Wilsey
Troy Wilsey
February 20, 2013
The Author uses Figure 2 as an example to show how Solar PV is affecting the spot market. It occurs to me that the curve looks quite standard to any other electricity spot market price curve over a given day's time, whether it has much solar or not playing in the market. If you compare any general Load Curve (I used PJM eDATA) to the spot market curve, used as an example for this article, I believe the market is simply following demand, and question how much Solar PV is really to be held responsible for influencing the price?

Excellent article BTW.
Nigel Morris
Nigel Morris
February 20, 2013
@ terry hallinan Terry, I think maybe Toby and David's point was that existing electricity markets currently include single clearing price mechanisms for setting the price at which all producers who successfully bid into that day's pool are paid. The close to zero marginal cost of some renewable energies (biomass doesn't fall into this group) means that they can bid at zero (or close to zero) price which is below the marginal operating cost of fossil fuel and nuclear producers, and probably below the long term amortised cost of those renewable producers. I think maybe Toby and David are saying it's the pricing mechanism which is not sustainable, not that there aren't credible long term solutions for using renewable energy as the primary source of energy. Part of the answer may be that existing renewables bidding in at their marginal cost of production will drive a significant proportion of fossil fuel generators (even current lower cost baseload generators) out of business. So that only very expensive short term peaker plants may be left to fill the gaps left by the inherent variability of even widely dispersed (geographically and system type) renewables. That is likely to cause very volatile market prices (with some very expensive peaks), enough to cause the market operator to decide that it is desirable from a system perspective for it to start paying low and medium cost generators sufficient capacity/participation payments to make it economic for them to keep their plants running and bid into the market at the low single market clearing price that the near zero cost renewable generators bring about (even if those MWh prices are below their marginal generating costs). Long term, those capacity/participation payments may also be needed by future builders of renewable generation capacity in order to show their financiers that their projects will be able to pay back their development costs (which they wouldn't using a simple single market clearing price mechanism)
Nigel Morris
Nigel Morris
February 20, 2013
@ Bryan Leyland, the fact that there is a current dip in some measures of mean global temperatures doesn't "destroy" the AGW CO2 theory. If you look at the NASA GISS graphs you will see that there have been a number of dips in average temperatures within an overall long increase in average global temperatures (see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ ).
By a number of other measures the average temperature has continued to rise.
Before "destroying" the AGW CO2 theory it would be good to have an alternative, worked through theory that explains the temperature rises since 1900. Most of the explanations given by AGW sceptics have included solar flaring, Maunder minima, earth oscillation etc. While there is truth in most of the issues raised as possible explanations for temperature rises since 1900, they have also been worked through and found to be inadequate to explain the temperature rises. It seems to me that the Greenhouse theory is the only one that accounts for the temperature rises adequately (even including all of the solar and planetary issues).

As for pumped hydro, would you explain why pumped hydro is only good for 10 hours of storage? It seems to me that one of the benefits of pumped hydro over a lot of other storage systems is that you can make the storage capacity very large, suitable for days, weeks, even months if a suitable site is found and enough renewable energy is available to pump that amount of storage uphill (admittedly such sites are not common, and these days getting permission to build them is often very tough).
terry hallinan
terry hallinan
February 20, 2013
" there are currently no credible, long-term solutions for incorporating high proportions of renewable energy into existing electricity markets."

False.

Baseload ("always on") renewable energy is more plentiful than all other sources of energy and cheap to boot.

The concentration on intermittent energy sources is extreme folly and leads even to the yearning for the most dangerous of all energy sources in the shorter term, nuclear. That is without mentioning the reliance on fossil fuels that threaten all life on the planet in the longer run.

This an excellent article despite the lapse.

Best, Terry
ANONYMOUS
February 20, 2013
On site, distributed, thermal storage will smooth the curve. Hot water, chilled water or ice can be stored for daily, weekly, monthly or even seasonal use. Excess heat from summer can be stored for winter heating. Ice made in the winter can be stored for cooling in the summer.
Maurits Boogaard
Maurits Boogaard
February 20, 2013
Let's not get distracted, we all know the nuclear pro and con arguments: The original article is about the economics of a renewable energy system. There are severe inbalances in the current system which may lead to a grinding halt of investments in RE if not properly addressed. The point which I was trying to make is that the instability of the spot market is of course caused by the mismatch between supply and demand, inherent to RE. Some of that mat be damped by demand control via smart grids, but a real stabilizer should come from a well managed storage system to provide the necessary arbitrage.
Current advances in electrolysis combined with methanation allow the storage of electrical energy in gas grids, but the investments needed are in the order of magnitude you need for oil refineries. As long as capital still flows merely in the direction of fossil because it provides lower risk and superior payback, this will not work out. Therefore my plea to provide a stimulus to investments in the storage sector to overcome the high entry barrier. Only renewable solutions which are also economically sustainable provide a real alternative for the current fossil fuel based economy.
Bob M
Bob M
February 20, 2013
..."regarding safety, the evidence is very clear: nuclear power is by far, the safest of all the major power generating technologies."

Been to Japan lately?
Nova Scotia Doug
Nova Scotia Doug
February 19, 2013
@ byran leland-- storage definitely exists in several forms and is viable, nuclear is already proven much more expensive and your comparison to solar at 10% is not accurate......@mboogaard -- YES STORAGE is the solution ...@maurymarkowitz -- BUT NO not in cars they are intended to be mobile, so will they be there when the power supply peaks or if you intend to draw it back when demand peaks,,,who pays for the cost of the car battery...not using mine I really see no logic on the point of car storage...we NEED UTILITY GRID storage ***********so for storage we start with the fact wind and solarpv are the best options with the declining price too....simple, we over build with wind and solar....when supply exceeds demand store the power in existing utility scale batteries is one option...and the second option is to power hydrogen production equipment sources are water, methane (sewage,landfill and compost or biomass source or plasma gasification of solid waste versus syngas outputs) and any hydrocarbons, VOCs or things like amonia can be hydrogen sources) some big win wins there dealing with pollutants to hydrogen....so the hydrogen can be stored and used in Utility scale Fuel Cell facilities that can ramp up in seconds to supply demand....note if we over build wind and solar, and have excess stored hydrogen, that hydrogen can be sold to power bus transit fleets, trains, ships, planes or a fuel cell car, material handling equipment or stationary heat and power for our buildings ....this is all on the market and viable...we need to "buy into all of it" and stop combustion that pollutes our air/environment...and transition out of Nuclear since it is now undisputed the most expensive source, without even considering the catastrophic risks and waste issues..plus we will still have hydrodams, and tidal /instream turbine --SMART Grid technologies can manage the generation to storage in leaning out the grid for an ultra efficient energy supply - a CLEAN TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 19, 2013
'No one is suggesting that nuclear power would cost more than the USD9000/kW equivalent cost of solar' Sure they are. Darlington B's listed cost was $8250. That did not include transmission upgrades, etc. Real costs were unknown, but thought to be higher. Voghel, all in, is at $7250. Moodies considers both of these to be lower than reality, as they don't figure in defrayed costs of insurance. What's particularly odd about the pro-nuclear lobby is that they should be embracing PV as much as they can. That's because nuclear has very low throttle-ability and has no real way to match peak. Somewhere around 50% of the nuclear capacity has to be made up with things like gas peakers. As you can see in the diagram above, PV makes a perfect counterpart to nuclear. What's even more odd is that I *just* wrote about this... http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/why-solar-is-nuclears-best-friend/
Bryan Leyland
Bryan Leyland
February 19, 2013
In a discussion like this, it is sometimes a good idea to get back to fundamentals. The first is that German solar power has a capacity factor of about 10%. For solar cells on roofs, it is probably worse. If solar installations cost USD1000/kW (and, in reality, they cost much more) you would need 9000 MW of solar installation to generate the same output as a 1000 MW nuclear power station. No one is suggesting that nuclear power would cost more than the USD9000/kW equivalent cost of solar. Regarding safety, the evidence is very clear: nuclear power is by far, the safest of all the major power generating technologies.

Solar power is heavily subsidised purely because of a belief that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. The fact that the world has not warmed for the last 16 years and is not expected to warm the side of 2018, destroys that theory.

Regarding energy storage, what we need is a low-cost efficient storage system that will store energy for days and weeks and months. No such technology exists or is even on the horizon. (I happen to have considerable expertise in Hydro pumped storage. It is inefficient, expensive, and stores electricity for a maximum of 10 hours. It is, by far, the best available technology. But it is not good enough.)

None of the new renewable energy technologies will exist without huge subsidies based on a belief that they will make a large difference to global warming (which they will not) and, anyway, the dangerous man-made global warming hypothesis is dead.
Daniel Simon
Daniel Simon
February 19, 2013
The author is saying that daytime energy costs are now too low in German? And this is a problem?

For the last few years Germany has been leading the world in solar installations (this is now changing) so it has added an impressive amount of solar in a very short time. If daytime energy costs remain low, then daytime demand will grow quickly in the coming years to avail itself of this unexpected bounty.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
February 19, 2013
"Excess electricity could be fed into the storage"

Ideally, in our cars.
Jay Warmke
Jay Warmke
February 19, 2013
Clearly as renewables take on a growing share of the market, the cost of production declines (quite a change from a few years ago).

In the telecommunications industry several decades ago, the cost of bandwidth (at the time the industry's marketable commodity) declined dramatically (approaching zero). The industry was forced to shift from a commodity-based industry, to a service-based industry. They no longer sell bandwidth, they sell access and services.

The book, When the Biomass Hits the Wind Turbine, argues that the energy industry is poised to transition in a similar way - for all the reasons stated in this article. No government subsidies for natural gas required.
MARIANO ORELLANA
MARIANO ORELLANA
February 19, 2013
Congratulations for the article. Question is: why principal Germany suppliers have not been able to duplicate what they have done in their country. Chile is small market, totally 8.500 MW peak ( two systems)very high prices, poor power quality, etc, and have DNI very high, good winds, etc. Hope they can interest to install here this renewable energy.
Maurits Boogaard
Maurits Boogaard
February 19, 2013
Development of and investment in electricity storage solutions like Power to Gas conversion could at least partially offset the effect: Excess electricity could be fed into the storage, thereby providing a bottom for the spot market. The power can again be released via a gas powered electricity plant (or fuel cell facility if available) when the spot market price is high. These storage facilities owe their economical existence to the spot market fluctuations, while at the same time providing a guaranteed sales channel for renewable energies. Seen this way investment in storage is key to closing the RE loop and establishing market equilibrium in a liberalized electricity market. Maybe the conclusion must be that we need EEG-like measures for the storage sector to overcome the first investment hurdles.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Toby Couture

Toby Couture

Toby Couture is Director of Renewable Energy at IFOK GmbH, an international consultancy with offices in Berlin, Brussels, Bensheim, Munich and Boston. He works on the environmental, economic and financial aspects of energy markets and is...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Helios Solar Works
  • ImagineSolar
  • Able Energy Co.
  • SMA America, LLC
  • SolarEdge Technologies
  • Conergy Inc.
  • Tigo Energy
  • Karbone
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information