New report argues that we should "overbuild" renewable capacity. Instead of sizing wind and solar for our electric generation needs, it is cheaper to build lots of excess capacity for when the wind don't blow, and when it is blowing, use the excess to decarbonize other energy sectors.

This may be a "game-changer", just as the gas industry claims Marcellus is. JBK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ned Ford Ned.Ford@fuse.net Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:10 PM Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Tremendous new report on a carbon-free electric sector in 2030 To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@lists.sierraclub.org

This article just came from the Club's frack list. I found a link to the actual report, to save folks a couple of clicks.

This is the first article I have seen (except for ones I've written) which gets it right.

For those of us in the Midwest, they modeled PJM.

It overstates the cost of ending fossil fuels in the electric sector because they do not examine the two most attractive forms of energy storage, building thermal storage and compressed air energy storage. But since they reach the right conclusion by using electric batteries and one tenth of the load from fossil fuels, it does not matter.

Here is a link to the actual article they report, which fortunately is open access:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

What is particularly important about this is that they find that building excess generating capacity (up to three times peak load) is cheaper than trying to build to load and manage the variability with a larger amount of storage. This is an essential part of an overall climate strategy because it allows us to use the excess capacity for water and space heating to displace natural gas, and for vehicles to displace petroleum. (Both of those uses are generally going to enhance energy storage). We could use 50% more electricity in 2030 than EIA projects, and starting toward that goal today will prevent us from being whipsawed by the aging nuclear plants as they fail.

Note that the headline below says 99.9% fossil-free, but the actual article says 90 to 99.9%. By the time we get there it won't matter.

Some of you may find the graphic of renewable generation versus storage requirements to be the most interesting part of the article. It certainly takes a big bite out of the argument that all renewables need massive storage capability.

I would like to work with people in the Club who want to articulate the message that the Sierra Club wants MORE electricity in the next two decades than EIA assumes we will need. Planning now, and starting now to build towards 50% more electricity than we use today is the only way we will get through the next decade with all the coal plant closures and the likely nuclear failures without economic catastrophe. We have to be a little circumspect about how we state that, but there is a growing body of argument that Business As Usual is going to end any chance of an economic recovery because of the high cost of new fossil plants. I have another reference I also found today, but it is a 5.4 MB powerpoint, and I will circulate a link if and when I can find one. In the mean time, if you are a glutton for this stuff, ask me offlist for the Risk powerpoint. There is a full report available from RAP, but the powerpoint is much more lucid than the written report.

- Ned

On 12/19/2012 11:49 AM, david Meiser wrote:

http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/dec/renewable-energy-121012.html

Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses, according to new research ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759 ) by the University of Delaware and Delaware Technical Community College. A well-designed combination of wind power, solar power and storage in batteries and fuel cells would nearly always exceed electricity demands while keeping costs low, the scientists found.

“These results break the conventional wisdom that renewable energy is too unreliable and expensive,” said co-author Willett Kempton ( http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?willett ), professor in the School of Marine Science and Policy in UD’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment ( http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/default.aspx ). “The key is to get the right combination of electricity sources and storage — which we did by an exhaustive search — and to calculate costs correctly.” The authors developed a computer model to consider 28 billion combinations of renewable energy sources and storage mechanisms, each tested over four years of historical hourly weather data and electricity demands. The model incorporated data from within a large regional grid called PJM Interconnection, which includes 13 states from New Jersey to Illinois and represents one-fifth of the United States’ total electric grid. Unlike other studies, the model focused on minimizing costs instead of the traditional approach of matching generation to electricity use. The researchers found that generating more electricity than needed during average hours — in order to meet needs on high-demand but low-wind power hours — would be cheaper than storing excess power for later high demand. Storage is relatively costly because the storage medium, batteries or hydrogen tanks, must be larger for each additional hour stored. One of several new findings is that a very large electric system can be run almost entirely on renewable energy. “For example, using hydrogen for storage, we can run an electric system that today would meeting a need of 72 GW, 99.9 percent of the time, using 17 GW of solar, 68 GW of offshore wind, and 115 GW of inland wind,” said co-author Cory Budischak, instructor in the Energy Management Department at Delaware Technical Community College and former UD student. A GW (“gigawatt”) is a measure of electricity generation capability. One GW is the capacity of 200 large wind turbines or of 250,000 rooftop solar systems. Renewable electricity generators must have higher GW capacity than traditional generators, since wind and solar do not generate at maximum all the time. The study sheds light on what an electric system might look like with heavy reliance on renewable energy sources. Wind speeds and sun exposure vary with weather and seasons, requiring ways to improve reliability. In this study, reliability was achieved by: expanding the geographic area of renewable generation, using diverse sources, employing storage systems, and for the last few percent of the time, burning fossil fuels as a backup. During the hours when there was not enough renewable electricity to meet power needs, the model drew from storage and, on the rare hours with neither renewable electricity or stored power, then fossil fuel. When there was more renewable energy generated than needed, the model would first fill storage, use the remaining to replace natural gas for heating homes and businesses and only after those, let the excess go to waste. The study used estimates of technology costs in 2030 without government subsidies, comparing them to costs of fossil fuel generation in wide use today. The cost of fossil fuels includes both the fuel cost itself and the documented external costs such as human health effects caused by power plant air pollution. The projected capital costs for wind and solar in 2030 are about half of today’s wind and solar costs, whereas maintenance costs are projected to be approximately the same. “Aiming for 90 percent or more renewable energy in 2030, in order to achieve climate change targets of 80 to 90 percent reduction of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the power sector, leads to economic savings,” the authors observe. The research was published online last month in the Journal of Power Sources.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/