ANALYSIS OF A 6-DAY LULL OF WIND AND SOLAR DURING SUMMER IN NEW ENGLAND

ABSTRACT OF ARTICLE 

 

In this article it was assumed all New England fossil and nuclear plants would be closed down, and the 2017 capacities, MW, of wind and solar would be increased 22 times, to offset the electricity shortfall of the closed plants. It was assumed the load (electricity fed to grid) on the NE grid increased from about 123 TWh/y in 2018 to about 175 TWh/y in 2050, mostly due to electric vehicles and heat pumps. See tables 1 and 3. 

 

Wind and Solar Have Much Higher Electricity Costs Than Gas and Nuclear: The electricity wholesale price of NE ridge line wind is about 9 c/kWh; of offshore wind is an average of about 8 to 9 c/kWh over the life of a 20-year contract; of field-mounted solar about 11 c/kWh; of household rooftop solar about 18 c/kWh. These prices would be at least 50% higher without various direct and indirect subsidies. The wholesale price of gas and nuclear averages about 5 c/kWh. See Appendix.

 

Six-Day Wind/Solar Lull During Summer: In 2017, a 6-day wind/solar lull occurred in summer. The question is, with fossil and nuclear plants closed down, and wind and solar built out, over the next few decades, as above described, how large a capacity of storage would be needed to offset the wind/solar electricity shortfall during the lull, if it had occurred in a future year.

An analysis, based on minute by minute NE grid supply and demand data, showed the storage capacity would need to be about 500,000 MWh, delivered as AC to the high voltage grid, to ensure adequate electricity to serve demand.

However, if a second multi-day lull had occurred a few days later, the remaining storage would not have been sufficient to deal with that lull. The turnkey capital cost of the wind, solar and storage build-outs of the above scenario was estimated at $489 billion, 2019$. See table 1A.

 

Increased Electricity Supply From Hydro-Quebec A Much Better Alternative: Increasing the capacity of the tie lines to the Canadian grid by about 5000 MW, plus some other measures, described in the article, would eliminate the electricity shortfall during wind/solar lulls, and the need for storage. The steady, near-CO2-free, hydro electricity from Hydro-Quebec would cost about 6 c/kWh, under 20-y supply contracts. The capital cost of the increased tie lines was estimated at $8 billion, 2019$.

Another question is, would New England be willing to depend on H-Q hydro electricity during wind/solar lulls, or would New England rather depend on very expensive, short-lived batteries? See table 1A.

 

ARTICLE

 

Renewable energy proponents want to close down New England’s fossil and nuclear plants, and want to prevent new build-outs of new fossil fuel infrastructure, and want to dismantle existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Their envisioned renewable energy replacement systems would be “distributed everywhere”. They often claim their approach would have lower electricity costs per kWh, because “wind and solar do not use fuel”. They claim the following would provide electricity service, 24/7/365, at a minimum reliability of 99.97%:

 

- Wind and solar

- Other sources (such as municipal refuse, wood, NE hydro, imported hydro from Canada, methane from refuse and farm, etc.)

- Supply management, SM, (increasing/decreasing exports to nearby grids, charging/discharging storage; curtailments during high wind and solar)

- Demand management, DM, (increasing/decreasing pre-agreed demand curtailments during low/high wind and solar)

- Energy efficiency to reduce demand and consumption

- Utilities using the batteries of electric vehicles to help stabilize grids and shift solar electricity from low demand, noon hours to peak demand, late afternoon/early evening hours.

- As a last resort, expensive utility-scale batteries to provide electricity when wind, solar and other sources are insufficient to meet demand, such as during a multi-day wind and solar lull.

 

NOTE: On March 15, 2019, the Millstone nuclear plant in Connecticut, 2100 MW, signed a contract with two Connecticut utilities to buy its steady, near-zero-CO2 electricity output for 10 years, likely at about 5 c/kWh, which means the plant will continue to operate for at least that period. It looks like the 100% RE proponents, with their “close down fossil and nuclear plants”, and “leave it in the ground”, and “wind, solar and hydro can do it all” mantras, were justifiably ignored.

 

NOTE:

- Energy storage does not generate electricity. It merely stores it.

- Battery energy storage could be used for regulation (fine tuning) of grids by quickly absorbing/providing small quantities of electricity. At present, diesel and gas turbine generators perform regulation services. That has nothing to do with energy shifting from one period to another. For that much larger battery capacities would be required.

- Any electricity in and out of most storage systems, such as pumped hydro and battery storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage-to-high voltage basis.

 

Two Examples of Grids with High Wind and Solar Requiring GWh-scale Storage

Example 1: This article deals with the economics of electrical storage of variable renewable energy sources. It assumes various grids are sufficiently connected to provide electricity to each other in the event of a wind/solar lull, such as the 6-day wind/solar lull in June 2017 in New England, or other major weather events anywhere. 

 

However, the New England grid does not have sufficient connections at present. New England would have to rely on various measures, including storage, to make up shortfalls due to wind/solar lulls, if fossil and nuclear plants were closed down.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301107

 

Example 2: This article describes in detail how to determine the storage requirements, if wind and solar are the dominant sources on the grid.

http://euanmearns.com/grid-scale-storage-of-renewable-energy-the-im...

 

Here are some additional sources of information:

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ne-wind-and-solar-elect...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-nuclear-plant...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/evs-and-plug-in-hybrids...

 

Closing Down Existing Fossil and Nuclear Plants

 

Closing down existing fossil and nuclear plants, in accordance with the goals of 100% RE proponents, would create a huge shortfall of generating capacity by 2050, during a multi-day wind/solar lull.

 

Whereas, various RE proponents, who likely have never analyzed any energy systems, are advocating such a scenario, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, the NRC and ISO-NE, would never allow such a scenario to unfold. Providing electricity service, 24/7/365, at high reliability, at least 99.97%, is a pre-eminent requirement above all others.

 

After closing down the fossil and nuclear plants, the NE grid would not have been able to provide electricity service, 24/7/365, at a minimum reliability of 99.97%, during the 6-day wind/solar lull of 23 June - 28 June, 2018, which had overcast skies, rain showers and little wind, unless some major measures were implemented, such as increasing the installed 2017 capacities of wind and solar 22 times, and providing new GWh-scale batteries, plus associated grid build-outs. See tables 1 and 1A

 

The below analysis shows, a 500,000 MWh battery would have been sufficient to cover the first 6-day wind/solar lull during summer, but not, if a second multi-day lull had occurred a few days later. See table 2.

 

Table 1

MW in 2017

Increased

MW in 2050

NE wind turbines capacity

1279

 22 times

 28138

NE solar capacity, ATM + BTM

2390 

 22 times

 52580

- ATM solar

890

 

 

- BTM solar

1500

 

 

 

 

 

MWh, as AC to HV grid

Battery capacity

 

 

500,000

 

ATM solar is after-the-meter solar fed to high voltage grids and monitored by ISO-NE

BTM solar is before-the-meter solar fed to distribution grids. It is estimated by local utilities and reported to ISO-NE.

 

Implications of Closing Down Gas Turbine Plants

 

At present the gas turbine plants perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing of the NE grid throughout the year, 24/7/365

 

Dealing With Variable Solar: The plants decrease their outputs every day to offset the increase of the midday solar output to ensure electricity fed to the grid is equal to demand, and increase their outputs during late afternoon/early evening, when solar is performing its daily disappearing act, to ensure peak electricity supply is equal to peak demand. The grid does not store electricity.

 

Dealing With Variable Wind: The plants increase/decrease their outputs to offset the variations of wind output throughout the year, 24/7/365, to ensure electricity fed to the grid is equal to demand.

 

Capacity Payments: The plants would operate, on average, at about 75% of rated output, so they could ramp up 25% and ramp down 25%; operating at less than 50% is not recommended, as the gas turbines would become unstable. Such operation means less efficient gas turbine operation (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/ kWh), and less electricity generation per year. Such operation likely would yield insufficient income to investors, i.e., subsidies likely would be needed to have those plants available for service. Such payments are called capacity payments in Germany and the UK.

 

Feeding Wind/Solar Outputs into Dedicated Storage: Every distribution grid would need batteries to reduce daily output variations of mostly solar*, and every high voltage grid would need GWh-scale batteries to reduce output variations of wind and solar*, if gas turbine plants were closed down. The batteries would charge/discharge, 24/7/365, to ensure steady electricity fed to grids would equal demand.

 

* In addition, millions of electric vehicles could be charged with the midday DC outputs of the solar systems and provide AC electricity during late afternoon/early evening. During NE winters, and during overcast days, which happen often in NE, that midday solar DC output would be minimal, i.e., unreliable.

 

If fossil and nuclear plants were closed down, and wind and solar were built out to become the dominant electricity sources, the remaining conventional plants would be unable to perform the large increases/decreases of their outputs to offset the large variations of wind and solar outputs.

 

This is the case in Denmark and Germany, which use the Norwegian hydro plants for much of the balancing of their grids, thereby avoiding expensive batteries. Their increasingly higher levels of wind and solar would not be possible without Norway. They have a unique advantage not easily duplicated throughout the US and the world.

 

Implications of Closing Down Nuclear Plants

 

The 690 MW, Pilgrim nuclear plant is due to close down in the near future. It generates about 4.5 billion kWh/y of steady, 24/7/365 electricity, regardless of wind and sun conditions. It sells its near-zero CO2 electricity to utilities at about 4.5 to 5.0 c/kWh, a major benefit for the NE economy.

 

More Expensive Offshore Wind Alternative in Massachusetts: Massachusetts is planning to build 1600 MW of offshore wind turbines south of Martha’s Vineyard. They would be 750-tall, 9.5 MW units, and would be highly visible from the south shore of Martha’s Vineyard, especially the flashing lights at night.

 

- Their electricity generation would randomly vary from 1550 MW to 150 MW during a strong wind month in winter.

- Their electricity generation would be minimal during a weak wind month in summer, which usually has high demand.

- At extremely high winds the rotor blades would be feathered to avoid damage to the wind turbines; see flat portions of the graph.

- Their electricity would be sold to utilities at about 8 to 9 c/kWh for a period of 20 years, per PPA agreement.

 

Expensive Battery Storage Alternative in the UK and Wales: Here is graph of offshore wind output in England and Wales during January 2019. The annual average output was about 3000 MW. Assuming for simplicity 1) demand was flat and 2) other sources of power were unavailable, about 200,000 MWh of battery discharge would be required to cover the five days from 2 to 7 January, during which power output was below the annual average for 114 hours. The battery discharge was obtained by summing up the hourly differences between actual output and the average of 3000 MW. A more realistic analysis of battery requirements was used in this article. See below.

http://greenbarrel.com/2019/02/06/january-wind-power-output-shows-w...

No Operational and Economic Equivalence of Wind and Solar and of Gas and Nuclear Plants

 

The RE proponents claiming operational and economic equivalence of these two electricity sources is well beyond rational.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/partial-capital-cost-of...

 

The electricity of the nuclear plant would need to replaced:

 

1) With the steady electricity of new gas turbines plants, 24/7/365, at about 6 c/kWh, which likely would not be feasible, because Massachusetts and New York are actively obstructing new gas pipelines, or

 

2) With about 5000 MW of additional tie lines to the Canadian grid, at a turnkey capital cost of about $8 billion, to enable Hydro-Quebec to provide steady, 24/7/365 electricity, plus perform any peaking, filling-in and balancing of the variable wind/solar output, as needed, all at about 6 c/kWh. H-Q has available the additional electricity supply right now.

 

Additional Tie Lines to Nearby Grids During Multi-Day Wind/Solar Lulls

 

Electricity supply, via additional tie lines to nearby grids, with a capacity totaling about 5000 MW, would mostly offset the supply gap of Day 1 of the above-mentioned 6-day wind/solar lull.

 

Such electricity would have much:

 

- Less turnkey capital cost than 1) build-outs of wind, solar and grid expansions, plus 2) extremely expensive, short-lived, battery storage.

- Lower energy costs per kWh than wind and solar. See Appendix.

 

A 5000 MW increase in capacity of tie lines would:

 

- Greatly reduce supply surpluses/shortages throughout the year.

- Enable an increase of annual hydro imports from 21.409 TWh in 2018 to at least 34.750 TWh in 2050. See table 3 

- Provide electricity at a cost of about 6 c/kWh, under 20-y contracts, to replace the low-cost nuclear and gas.

- Provide much of the peaking, filling-in and balancing of any variable wind and solar on the NE grid.

- Have a turnkey capital cost of about $8 billion

- The tie lines, lasting at least 40 years, would have low capacity factors, but that would be far less costly than expensive battery systems lasting at most 15 years. See tables 1 and 1A

 

Multi-Day Wind/Solar Lulls During Winter: In case of a multi-day wind/solar lull during winter, with overcast skies, little wind, and the likelihood of snow and ice on most of the panels, the batteries would need to have much greater capacity to cover the above mentioned 6-day wind/solar lulls than for a similar lull in summer, because unreliable solar would be minimal. These URLs show, two multi-day winter lulls can happen only a few days apart.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

 

TURNKEY CAPITAL COST

 

The huge wind and solar build-outs, plus a very large capacity of battery storage, would be required, at a turnkey capital cost of at least $489 billion (not counting any subsidies, financing costs, decommissioning costs of existing plants, etc.). The short-lived batteries would be unaffordable, even at the “Holy Grail” price of $100/kWh. See tables 1 and 1A

 

NOTE: The Hornsdale Power Reserve battery system, 100 MW/129 MWh, on about 10 acres, in Australia, had a turnkey capital cost of $66 million, or $512/kWh, in 2017. It primarily serves the FCAS market, and performs daily charging when prices are low, daily discharging when prices are high, aka arbitrage. See URL.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-...

 

Table 1A

 

 Near future 

Holy Grail

Service life

 

 

$400/kWh

$100/kWh

 

$billion

$billion

year

Batteries 

500000 MWh = 3876 Hornsdale systems

200

50

10 to 15

Wind addition

1279 x (22 - 1) x 1.15, grid factor x $2800000/MW

86

86

20 to 25

Solar addition

2390 x (22 - 1) x 1.15, grid factor x $3500000/MW

202

202

25 to 30

Total

489

339

 

OTHER MEASURES TO INCREASE STEADY ELECTRICITY DURING A 6-DAY LULL

 

It is clear increasing wind and solar by 22 times would be insufficient to overcome the electricity shortfalls of a 6-day wind/solar lull during summer. See table 2.

 

Increase Other Sources: However, it is likely other sources (NE hydro, wood, refuse, landfill and farm methane, imports via tie lines) could temporarily increase their outputs by about 10% at near-zero capital cost.

 

- The average output of these sources was 4190 MW on Day 1 of the above-mentioned 6-day lull.

- A 10% increase would provide about 4190 x 10% x 24h x 6d = 60331 MWh for 6 days.

- The battery was assumed charged at 60% of capacity at the start of Day 1; it would be miracle, if the battery were at 100% at the start of a 6-day wind/solar lull.

- If a second multi-day wind/solar lull had occurred a few days later, the battery would not have enough charge to cover it. See table 2.

 

Demand Management: Demand management to shift demand from peak hours (late afternoon/early evening) to off-peak hours would be required, also called “flattening the demand curve”.

 

Increasing Wood Burning?

Permanently increased wood burning in power plants would not be a good idea, as it would waste a lot of trees. Also, the combustion CO2 emissions of Year 1 would be reabsorbed by new tree growth over a long period, about 100 years in colder climates, such as Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, if the forest were not encroached upon by any human activities, such as roads, development, etc., that would impair its CO2 sequestering abilities. See Appendix 7.

 

Table 2

Other sources increased

 

MWh

 MWh

Deliverable from battery at start of Day 1, as AC

300000

300000

Discharge for 6 days, as AC

265640

265640

Eectricity from other sources increased by 10%, as AC

 

60331

Deliverable from battery at end of Day 6, as AC

34360

94691

 

NE GRID RESOURCE MIX IN 2018 AND PROJECTED MIX FOR 2050

 

Table 3 shows the NE grid electricity sources for 2018, and a projection of the sources for 2050.

 

- The NE grid load (electricity fed to grid) was 123.667 TWh in 2018

- The load, plus BTM solar, were assumed to increase to 175 TWh/y, mainly due to heat pumps, EVs, and economic growth.

- NE electricity generation by fossil and nuclear was 84,166 GWh in 2018

- Wind and solar were assumed to increase as shown in table 1

- Other sources were assumed to increase by small percentages, as shown in table 1

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

NOTE:

Widespread adoption of heat pumps and electric vehicles would significantly increase the need for electricity. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-all-ic-ldvs-w...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims...

 

Table 3, NE electricity sources

2018

2018

2018

2050

2050

2050

TWh

TWh/d

%

TWh

TWh/d

%

Fossil

52.781

0.145

42.7

Nuclear

31.385

0.086

25.4

Renewables

10.788

0.030

8.7

116.750

0.320

73.0

- Wind

3.367

0.009

2.7

80.000

0.219

50.0

- Refuse

3.018

0.008

2.4

4.000

0.011

2.5

- Wood

2.698

0.007

2.2

3.000

0.008

1.9

- ATM Solar

1.212

0.003

1.0

29.000

0.079

18.1

- Landfill methane

0.448

0.001

0.4

0.650

0.002

0.4

- Farm, etc., methane

0.045

0.000

0.0

0.100

0.000

0.1

Other

0.400

0.001

0.3

0.500

0.001

0.3

NE Hydro

8.708

0.024

7.0

10.000

0.027

6.3

Imported H-Q hydro via tielines

21.409

0.059

17.3

34.750

0.095

21.7

Pumping loss

-1.804

-0.005

-1.5

-2.000

-0.005

-1.3

Electricity fed to high voltage grid

123.667

0.339

100.0

160.000

0.438

100.0

BTM solar fed to distribution grids

2.162

0.006

15.000

0.041

Total

125.829

175.000

 

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

 

The only way to make a proper analysis of storage requirements, MWh, is by use of real-time, minute by minute, or hour by hour, grid operating data regarding electricity fed to the grid by source, and the minute by minute, or hour by hour, electricity demand by users.

 

Any generation shortfall/surplus would be offset by the storage system on a second to second basis. Generation shortages would likely occur during multi-day wind/solar lulls, if wind and solar were the dominant sources on a grid. Many articles have been written regarding storage requirements, but they are bogus, unless based on real-time grid data.

 

ISO-NE Real-Time Grid Operating Data: Fortunately, ISO-NE posts real-time data regarding grid operations, every few minutes, on a daily basis.

 

See URL, go to fuel mix graph, click on rectangle with arrow and download the outputs, MW, of the various electricity sources connected to the NE high voltage grid. The corresponding real-time demand, MW, is also posted and can be downloaded.

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts

 

The 6-Day Wind/Solar Lull in 2018; 23 June - 28 June

 

Some people may remember that period as having little sunshine, much rain and almost no wind.

New England would have been “up the creek without a paddle”, if it had to rely on wind and solar for its electricity, unless very large-scale storage were available to supply any shortfalls.

This article will provide an estimate of the capacity, MW/MWh, and turnkey capital cost of that storage.

 

NOTE: Battery capacity must always be specified, such as 100 MW/129 MWh, i.e., capable of delivering, as AC, 50 MW for 2.58 hours, or 100 MW for 1.29 hours.

 

Sizing the Available Battery Capacity for A Multi-Day Wind/Solar Lull:

The battery available capacity was assumed at 500,000 MWh, delivered as AC to high voltage grid.

The battery was assumed charged at 60% of capacity at the start of Day 1; it would be miracle, if the battery were at 100% at the start of a 6-day wind/solar lull.

The available discharge would be 500000 x 60% = 300,000 MWh as AC.

 

Generation Sources:

- ATM solar, such as large, field-mounted, was from about 890 MW of PV solar at end 2017

- BTM solar, such as residential rooftop solar, was from about 1500 MW of PV solar at end 2017

- Wind was from about 1279 MW of wind turbines connected to the NE high voltage grid at end 2017. See note.

- Other sources was from NE hydro, wood, refuse, and landfill and farm methane, and tieline imports.

- Monthly imports are reported by ISO-NE. I could not find hourly data.

- Shortfall = Demand - (NE generation + Imports) 

 

NOTE: Wind installed capacity was 1379 MW at end 2017, of which about 75 MW in Maine is connected to the Canadian grid, due to a lack of transmission to the NE high voltage grid.

https://www.awea.org/wind-energy-facts-at-a-glance

 

DAY 1

The data downloaded for 23 June 2017 covered a day with overcast weather, rain showers, and little wind. The spreadsheet was too wide for this page, so I split it in two.

2017 capacities of wind and total solar (ATM + BTM) were multiplied 22 times.

Fossil and nuclear plants were closed down.

Other sources were left unchanged, i.e., not “slightly increased” as above noted.

Table 4 shows a shortfall of 3113 MW at 1 AM (in bold in table 4), which was supplied by the new battery to the HV grid.

The total discharge from the battery at end of Day 1 was 43627 MW. See table 5

 

Table 4

Gas

Nuclear

NE Hydro

Coal

Oil

Renew

Wood

Refuse

Wind

Wind

Landfill

x 22

Gas

1

5192

4016

660

58

3

1002

417

375

181

3982

29

2

4675

4013

599

59

5

982

423

384

146

3212

29

3

4670

4013

583

64

3

966

412

378

147

3234

29

4

4118

4010

582

62

2

946

409

397

111

2442

29

5

4529

4015

597

63

3

969

403

405

133

2926

28

6

5505

3869

704

61

3

1019

407

392

190

4180

29

7

7780

3634

742

62

1

1064

418

400

214

4708

28

8

8166

3628

730

61

2

1079

407

390

243

5346

29

9

8960

3748

825

60

2

1159

414

396

309

6798

29

10

9888

3701

811

62

46

1141

407

398

274

6028

29

11

10512

3615

1063

61

1

1134

423

386

251

5522

29

12

10867

3649

1240

56

1

1128

425

381

252

5544

29

13

11050

3602

1548

65

1

1142

431

383

263

5786

28

14

10710

3622

1676

68

54

1086

430

373

220

4840

28

15

10534

3622

1673

70

82

1081

432

392

197

4334

28

16

10682

3622

1594

66

81

1094

427

391

220

4840

29

17

10715

3625

1778

63

82

1154

443

408

259

5698

29

18

10713

3628

1693

63

82

1088

436

402

220

4840

29

19

10463

3634

1147

61

82

1155

438

402

284

6248

29

20

10281

3639

1071

64

82

1217

445

396

346

7612

29

21

10174

3642

1046

56

2

1210

438

406

336

7392

29

22

9220

3660

831

65

2

1243

427

407

380

8360

29

23

7713

3827

655

66

2

1284

417

403

435

9570

29

24

6551

3849

619

63

2

1300

429

415

427

9394

29

 

Solar

Solar

Total

Total

Import

Supply

FF and

Left over

Demand

Shortfall -

Accum.

ATM

BTM

Solar

Solar x 22

Nuclear

Surplus +

300000

0

0

0

0

2324

17056

9269

7787

10900

-3113

-3113

0

0

0

0

2324

15723

8752

6971

10270

-3299

-6412

0

0

0

0

2324

15710

8750

6960

9890

-2930

-9342

0

0

0

0

2324

14375

8192

6183

9750

-3567

-12909

0

0

0

0

2324

15293

8610

6683

9730

-3047

-15956

1

2

3

30

2324

17504

9438

8066

9820

-1754

-17710

4

7

11

118

2324

20215

11477

8738

10210

-1472

-19182

10

17

27

295

2324

21378

11857

9521

10950

-1429

-20611

11

19

30

325

2324

23881

12770

11111

11790

-679

-21290

33

56

89

975

2324

24669

13697

10972

12350

-1378

-22668

45

76

121

1329

2324

25265

14189

11076

12680

-1604

-24272

41

69

110

1211

2324

25727

14573

11154

12950

-1796

-26068

37

62

99

1093

2324

26311

14718

11593

12970

-1377

-27445

35

59

94

1034

2324

25159

14454

10705

13010

-2305

-29750

32

54

86

945

2324

24436

14308

10128

13010

-2882

-32632

27

46

73

798

2324

24854

14451

10403

13000

-2597

-35229

15

25

40

443

2324

25608

14485

11123

13120

-1997

-37226

1

2

3

30

2324

24240

14486

9754

13350

-3596

-40823

2

3

5

59

2324

24887

14240

10647

13310

-2663

-43485

1

2

3

30

2324

25973

14066

11907

13250

-1343

-44829

1

0

1

11

2324

25520

13874

11646

13160

-1514

-46343

0

0

0

0

2324

25325

12947

12378

12920

-542

-46885

0

0

0

0

2324

25006

11608

13398

12130

1268

-45617

0

0

0

0

2324

23675

10465

13210

11220

1990

-43627

 

Spreadsheets were prepared for Days 2 through 6 (not shown here).

The battery status for Days 1 through 6 is summarized in table 5.

Day 3 had some sunshine which reduced the battery discharge.

Each day was mostly overcast, with rain and little wind.

Each day had shortfalls of generation, which were made up by the battery.

At the end of the Day 6, the battery was almost empty.

 

Table 5

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Battery charge, AC, start

300000

256373

202891

169437

121615

80032

Discharge, AC

43627

53482

33454

47822

41583

45672

Battery charge, AC, end

256373

202891

169437

121615

80032

34360

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other sources increased, AC

60331

Battery charge, AC, end

94691

 

APPENDIX 1

Wind, Solar, Hydro, Bio and Waste

 

RE proponents claim wind and solar, and hydro + bio + waste, and energy storage, and demand management, and energy efficiency, and heat pumps and the batteries of electric vehicles will provide electricity, 24/7/365, at a minimum of 99.97% reliability, plus their envisioned system will be “distributed” everywhere, and it will have lower electricity costs per kWh, because “it does not use fuel”.

 

For many years, independent energy systems analysts have warned new Englanders higher electric rates would happen with increased build-outs of heavily-subsidized wind and solar, but legislators, etc., pooh-poohed them. Now, with utilities asking for 5%/y rate increases year after year, New Englanders are finally beginning to learn that the RE siren song and dance is, in fact, a charade.

NOTE:

If RE proponents were correct, why do countries in the EU, with highest levels of RE capacity/capita, such as Germany and Denmark also have highest household electric rates?

The commercial/industrial rates are kept low and much less burdened with taxes, fees and surcharges, for competitive reasons. Why would that be different in New England?

See Euan Mearns URL with a graph of household electric rates versus RE capacity/capita in various EU countries.

 

http://euanmearns.com/an-update-on-the-energiewende/

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

APPENDIX 2

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and mediocre onshore wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row, throughout the year, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row, throughout the year, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize these grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind/solar lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy, unless Hydro-Quebec hydro electricity were readily available.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources fed to NE grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (about 500,000 MWh, delivered as AC) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods.  Seasonal variations likely would require multi-TWh-scale storage. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWh of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

APPENDIX 3

Wind and Solar Electricity is Minuscule After 20 Years of Subsidies: Wind and solar (before and after the meter) were 2.7 and 1.97 percent of all electricity on the NE grid in 2017, per ISO-NE. Total RE electricity was 10.17 percent (including before and after the meter solar), after about 20 years of subsidies.

 

- Past RE development has been very slow even with subsidies.

- Federal investment tax credit subsidies for wind and solar are scheduled to decrease.

- NE will need traditional generators for decades.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-likely-scenario-durin...

 

NOTE: The realities of life are, it took decades to increase:

- Natural gas from a few percent of US electricity to over 30% in 2017

- Nuclear from zero percent of US electricity to about 20% in 2017

- Wind and solar from near zero of US electricity to 6.4% and 1.9%, respectively in 2017, and it would take decades more to have 30% to 40% of US electricity from wind and solar.

Electricity generation uses only about 40% of all US primary energy.

Converting that other 60% to renewables would be a Herculean task and very expensive.

 

APPENDIX 4

New England Wholesale Prices: NE wholesale prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh for steady, 24/7/365 electricity since about 2009, primarily due to:

 

1) Natural gas electricity; 50% of NE generation; low-cost (5 c/kWh), low-CO2, no particulates, domestic fuel.

2) Nuclear electricity; 26% of NE generation; low-cost (5 c/kWh), minimal-CO2, no particulates, domestic fuel.

3) NE hydro electricity; 8.4% of generation, low-cost (5 c/kWh), minimal-CO2, no particulates, domestic.

4) Tie line electricity; 16.7% of NE grid load; low-cost (5.7 c/kWh), minimal-CO2, no particulates, imported

 

Average midday prices, when solar is most active, are about 6 c/kWh, due to low demand

Average late afternoon/early evening prices, when solar is minimal, are about 7 to 8 c/kWh, due to peak demand; prices may be up to 10 c/kWh, or even higher, on very rare occasions.

Average late evening/early morning prices are about 3 to 5 c/kWh
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

 

APPENDIX 5

High Electricity Prices for RE in New England: The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

 

Wind and Solar Far From Competitive with Fossil in New England: The Conservation Law Foundation, and other such entities, claim renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.

 

NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

NE wind offshore until recently about 18 c/kWh

NE wind ridgeline is about 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is about 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 - 5.0 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

 

NOTE: Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, fifteen miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, using 9.5 MW turbines, 750 ft tall.

Phase 1 on line in 2021, electricity offered at an average of 8.9 c/kWh over 20 years

Phase 2 offered at an average of 7.9 c/kWh over 20 years

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/13/vineyard-wind-offer...

https://www.boem.gov/What-Does-an-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Facility-Loo...

 

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Local Market Prices, LMPs, which:

 

- Vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm;

- Slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal;

- Are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is at its usual minimal level. During unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, LMPs may increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher, if such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the direct and indirect subsidies and even higher without cost shifting from owners to others. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph showing wholesale prices were higher than 6 c/kWh for very few hours during a 13-y period. Wholesale prices have been low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:

 

- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided, recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.


https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/markets/

http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-t...

 

NOTE: Nuclear, gas and coal produce electricity at less than 5 c/kWh and closing them down would eliminate competition for wind which produces at 9 c/kWh (ridgeline) and solar which produces at 12 c/kWh (competitively bid, field-mounted) and 18 c/kWh (rooftop). Closing these plants would not be a good outcome for the NE economy, which already is handicapped by the highest energy costs in the US.

 

APPENDIX 6

Available Battery Capacity

 

Wind production varies due to variable winds throughout the day, especially when it is gusty.

Solar production varies due to variable cloudiness during daytime hours.

The batteries could not be fully discharged (say down to 10%), nor fully charged (say up to 90%), because they have to balance the wind and solar surging and ebbing on a real-time basis.

 

Thus a maximum of about 80% of the battery capacity would be available for filling-in when solar and wind are insufficient, and for serving peak demands.

 

Increased Internal Resistance and Loss of Capacity with Age: As the battery ages, its internal resistance, milli-ohm, increases. Any electricity passing through the batteries has a loss of at least 12.7% when new, at least 18.9% in year 10, and at least 21.2% in year 15, on an AC-to-AC basis. See table 4.

 

The increase of internal resistance and decrease of capacity are greater in early years than in later years. See sciencedirect URL, table 2.

 

Such decrease in performance adversely affects the battery system economics. See figure 7 in URL, which shows increased internal resistance and loss of capacity for only 40000 h, or 4.56 y

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191731190X

 

NOTE: In case of an EV battery:

- Resistance to charging increases with age, i.e., more kWh for charging to 100% full.

- Capacity to store electricity decreases with age by about 10% in year 10, by about 13% in year 15, i.e., less range.

- Resistance to discharging increases with age, i.e., less kWh available to wheels, slower acceleration, sluggish/no oomph uphill, less range.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-all-ic-ldvs-w...

 

See charge and discharge loss factors in table 6.

 

Table 6/Age

New

10y

15y

Charge side loss

High voltage to low voltage, 1%

0.990

0.990

0.990

AC to DC, 2.2%

0.978

0.978

0.978

Charge loss factor, from graph

0.965

0.930

0.917

Charge side loss

0.934

0.900

0.888

%

6.6

10.0

11.2

Discharge side loss

Discharge loss factor, from graph

0.965

0.930

0.917

DC to AC

0.978

0.978

0.978

Low voltage to high voltage

0.990

0.990

0.990

Discharge side loss

0.934

0.900

0.888

%

6.6

10.0

11.2

Round-trip, AC-to-AC

0.873

0.811

0.788

%

12.7

18.9

21.2

 

APPENDIX 7

Wood-Burning Power Plants

 

Vermont has the Ryegate wood burning plant, which gets about 50 percent of its trees from northern NH. Its efficiency is about 24%, but the efficiency from “forest to electric meter” is about 15.5 percent. That means the energy equivalent of about 5.5 out of 6.5 trees is wasted.

 

Ryegate burns about 250,000 ton of trees per year, which has about 250,000 ton of combustion CO2 emissions per year. In New England, it takes about 100 years for the CO2 to be reabsorbed by new tree growth. The period is about 20 to 25 years in planted and fertilized forests in Georgia.

 

The combustion CO2 is absorbed according to an S-curve, in New England in about 100 years. Absorption is slow during the 1st 1/3 of the period, rapid during the 2nd 1/3 of the period and slow during the 3rd 1/3 of the period.

 

That means, if a wood burning plant operates for 40 years and is then closed down, it would take about 100 years before the combustion CO2 of Year 40 would be absorbed.

 

There is non-combustion CO2, about 15% to 20%, on a forest-to-electric meter basis.

That CO2 is due to logging, chipping, transport, power plant operations, disturbance of the forests, etc.

That CO2 is absorbed in some other manner or is added to the atmosphere.

 

NOTE: In Georgia, with planted forests that are managed/culled for quality and fertilized, the time between harvests is about 25 years.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-burning-wood-co-2-ne...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wood-for-fuel-logging-i...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-comparison-of-wood-ch...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dismal-economics-and-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/governor-sununu-vetoes-...

 

A much better approach would be to have high-efficiency wood burning heating plants. The efficiency from "forest to heating appliance" would be about 62.5 percent. That means the energy equivalent of only about 0.6 out of 1.6 trees is wasted.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/more-realistic-energy-s...

 

APPENDIX 8

Hydro-Quebec Electricity Generation and Purchases: Google this URL for the 2017 facts. The H-Q electricity supply is an order of magnitude cleaner than the Vermont supply.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

 

Table 6/H-Q

2017

GWh

Hydropower generated 

177091

Purchased

44006

- Hydro

31610

- Wind

9634

- Biomass and waste reclamation 

2021

- Other

741

Total RE generated and purchased

221097

 

NOTE: Gentilly-2 nuclear generating station, plus three thermal generating stations (Tracy, La Citière and Cadillac) were closed down.

 

Hydro-Quebec Export Electricity: H-Q net exports were 34.4 TWh/y in 2017; provided 27% of H-Q net income, or $780 million, i.e., very profitable.

 

H-Q export revenue was $1,651 million in 2017, or 1641/34.4 = 4.8 c/kWh.

See page 24 of Annual Report URL.

This is for a mix of old and new contracts.

Revenue = 1641

Net profit = 780

Cost = 1641 - 780 = 861

Average cost of H-Q generation = 861/34.4 = 2.5 c/kWh

 

GMP buys H-Q electricity, at the Vermont border, for 5.549 c/kWh, under a recent contract. GMP buys at 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.

H-Q is eager to sell more of its surplus electricity to New England and New York.

 

That is about 50% less than ridgeline wind and large-scale field-mounted solar, which are heavily subsidized to make their electricity appear to be less costly than reality. 

 

GMP sells to households at 19 c/kWh, per rate schedule, including taxes ,fees and surcharges. Pricing for electricity is highly political. That is implemented by rate setting, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., mostly on household electric bills, as in Denmark and Germany, etc. The rate setting is influenced by protecting State government “RE policy objectives”, which include highly subsidized, expensive microgrids, islanding, batteries and net metered solar and heat pumps.

 

http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

http://news.hydroquebec.com/en/press-releases/1338/annual-report-2917/

http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/annual-report...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increased-canadian-hydr...

Views: 196

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on April 9, 2019 at 3:11am

The Hornsdale Power Reserve battery system also serves to:

- Mitigate the effects of load-shedding blackouts and
- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.

- In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about 56 million Euros, about US$ 66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of the system on a 10-acre site.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm

https://reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-true-cost-of-tesla-big-battery...

Comment by Willem Post on April 6, 2019 at 6:09pm

The Tesla Powerpack 2 system in Australia, the largest in the world, has a rated capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh; delivered as AC should be added, if known. The battery system feeds AC electricity to the high voltage grid or absorbs electricity from the grid to:

- Smoothen the variable output of the nearby 315 MW French-owned wind turbine system to minimize it “upsetting” the high voltage grid. Synchronous-condenser systems perform a similar function.
- Prevent load-shedding blackouts and
- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.

In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about 56 million Euros, about US$ 66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of the system on a 10-acre site.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm

https://reneweconomy.com.au/revealed-true-cost-of-tesla-big-battery...

 

It serves to stabilize/smooth the variable output of a nearby French wind turbine plant, and to perform regulation of the grid. Its capacity is at least 50 times too small for any significant electricity shifting from one period to a later period.

Comment by Willem Post on April 6, 2019 at 9:35am

TLAM

Thank you for pointing that out.

I made the following comment on What is Up with That.

Rud,
You are quite correct to specify batteries as 100 MW/129 MWh. One without the other makes no sense.
Prices of batteries is one thing, turnkey capital cost is another.
Musk had to airship to Australia the entire Tesla supply by plane to make tight schedules.
Various capital costs were bandied about.

The Tesla Powerpack 2 system in Australia, the largest in the world, has a rated capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh (delivered as AC should be added, if that is known). The battery system feeds AC electricity to the high voltage grid or absorbs electricity from the grid to:

- Smoothen the variable output of the nearby 315 MW French-owned wind turbine system to minimize it “upsetting” the high voltage grid. Synchronous-condenser systems perform a similar function.
- Prevent load-shedding blackouts and
- Provide stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.


In 2017, the TURNKEY capital cost was about US $66 million, or 66 million/129,000 = $512/kWh; this is a low price, because Tesla was eager to obtain the contract. Here is an aerial photo of the system on a 10-acre site.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm

The FP&L system will be 409 MW/900 MWh, i.e., 900/129 = 6.98 larger than Hornsdale (delivered as AC should be added, if that is known).

In 2020, the TURNKEY capital cost of the batteries will be about 900,000 kWh x $450/kWh = $360 million, to be amortized over 15 years.
In 2020, the turnkey cost of the new CCGT plants will be about 1778 MW x $1.25 million/MW = $2223 million, to be amortized over 35 to 40 years.
In 2020, the turnkey cost of the new solar plants will be about 74.5 MW x 2 x $2.5 million/MW = $372.5 million, to be amortized over 25 years.

"It will have 409 MW and be able to produce 900 MWh of energy from FPL’s adjacent Manatee solar farm and another (of equal size) to be built nearby. It will provide clean, cost effective electricity."

1) The battery will NOT be able to PRODUCE anything. It only charges, stores and discharges.
2) Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC to high voltage AC basis, i.e., it CONSUMES a lot of electricity.
3) Parish’s existing, 50-y old, inefficient plants, 1618 MW, will be demolished. On the cleared site will be the new batteries.
4) New, 55%-efficient, gas-fired CCGT plants, 1778 MW, will be built at Lake Okeechobee. THEIR OUTPUT WILL MORE THAN REPLACE THE DEMOLISHED PLANTS.
5) The Manatee solar farm, and the nearby one, now under construction, are 74.5 MW each, area required about 1043 acres, at 7 acre/MW.
6) Production of both solar plants = 74.5 MW x 2 x 8766 h/y x 0.19, capacity factor = 248,165 MWh per YEAR.
7) The output of the solar plants will be minimal at 8 AM, maximal at noon-time, and minimal about 5 PM.
8) During mid-day, electricity is fed into the battery at the ALLOWED battery feed in rate, and no higher.
9) During evening, electricity is discharged from the battery at the ALLOWED discharge rate and no higher.

10) Whereas, the capacity is 900 MWh (delivered as AC should be added, if that is known), their maximum charge likely will be at most 60% of that, i.e., 540 MWh. That means 540 MWh/0.96 = 563 MWh enters the battery as DC from the solar plants. Their maximum discharge likely will be at most 540 x 0.96 = 518.4 MWh as DC, or 492 MWh as low voltage AC, or 483 MWh as high voltage AC.

11) It is glaringly obvious, the battery coupled to solar plants has major losses.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on April 5, 2019 at 7:19pm

Speaking of batteries, here's an article I just came across.

Grid Scale Battery Nonsense 2019

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-...

Comment by Willem Post on April 4, 2019 at 11:01am

They likely graduated, but not in energy systems analysis.

In fact, nearly all of them NEVER analyzed any energy systems, and likely could not compare one versus another.

They rely on self-serving, pre-selected lobbying groups to plead their cases for subsidies/favorable treatment in front of committees, that are loaded with do-gooding folks eager to please their constituents and get re-elected.

Here is a brief write up on heat pumps, which have been hyped top the hills, but are useless in energy hog houses.

Vermont Mix House

 

“Vermont mix houses” (a mix of older and newer houses) are energy hogs. They would have a high peak heating demand during colder winter days, which makes them unsuitable for heat pumps. In this article a “Vermont mix house” is assumed to be a 2000 sq ft house requiring about 64000 Btu/h at -20F outdoors and 65F indoors.

 

At 0F and below, the hourly cost of heating a “Vermont mix house” with heat pumps + fuel oil back-up system is higher than with only a fuel oil back-up system. See table 2A

 

Heat pumps used in a “Vermont mix house” would displace only about 32% of the fossil Btus, which would provide inadequate energy cost savings and CO2 emissions reduction. See table 3

 

Highly Insulated/Highly Sealed House

 

HI/HS houses” likely would have R20 basements, R40 walls, R60 roofs, R7 triple pane windows, R8 insulated doors, and less than 1.0 ACH @ 50 Pascal. See below Blower Door Test. They would have a low peak heating demand during colder winter days, which makes them suitable for heat pumps. In this article an “HI/HS house” is assumed to be a 2000 sq ft house requiring about 17045 Btu/h at -20F outdoors and 65F indoors.

 

At 0F and below, the hourly cost of heating an “HI/HS house” with only heat pumps is higher than with only a fuel oil back-up system.

 

Heat pumps used in an “HI/HS house” would displace 100% of the fossil Btus, which would provide adequate energy cost savings and CO2 emissions reduction. See table 3

 

Such houses likely would have a propane-fired stove (thermostat-operated/no electricity), but not a much more expensive fuel oil system, in case of a power failure. See table 2B and Appendix

 

Blower Door Test

 

A blower door test is performed to determine the air in-leakage rate of a house, in air changes per hour, ACH, at a negative pressure of 50 Pascal. A door with an integral blower is mounted in an existing door opening. The blower sucks air from the house until the pressure in the house is 50 Pascal below ambient. The air in-leakage rate is measured in cubic foot per hour. The total volume of the house, including attic and basement, is calculated in cubic foot. Air in-leakage rate/house volume = ACH.

 

Peak Space Heating Demands of Various Houses 

 

Typical space heating demands of 2000 ft2, freestanding houses are shown in table 5. It is abundantly clear only "HI/HS houses" are suitable for 100% heating with air source heat pumps. All the rest of the houses are unsuitable. The peak heating demands are too high.

 

All of this has been known for about 20 years, so it should not be a surprise to find owners who installed heat pumps in their typical, energy-hog houses to reduce their energy bills, end up having no or minimal energy cost savings, as was found by this Vermont Department of Public Service study.

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_...

 

Passivhaus, the Gold Standard: Passivhaus, 2000 ft2, heating demand 10 W/m2 x 186 m2 = 1.86 kW, or 6,348 Btu/h, or 3.2 Btu/ft2/h. A 2 kW, thermostatically controlled, electric heater in the air supply duct system could be the heating system!! The Passivhaus standard dates from the mid 1980s.

 

Table 5/Vermont

Area

Heating Demand

Peak Demand

Air Leakage

ACH

House type

 

Btu/ft2/h

Btu/h

Ft3/minute

@ 50 pascal

Typical older house

2000

45 – 55

80,000

2133

8.0, or higher

Newer house, last 20 years

2000

20 – 25

48,000

1040

3.9, or higher

“Vermont mix house”

2000

33 - 40

64,000

1587

6.0, or higher

“HI/HS house”, last 10 years

2000

8.5

17,045

650

1.5, max

“HI/HS house”, last 10 years

1232

8.5

10,500

400

1.5, max

Passivhaus

2000

3.2

 6,348

160

0.6, max

 

VT-DPS Survey of Owners with Heat Pumps

 

The VT-DPS survey showed heat pumps are operated only a few hours at 0F and below, i.e., almost all owners are relying on only their back-up systems on cold days. See figure 14 of URL

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Energy_...

 

The surveyed Vermont houses with heat pumps likely are slightly better insulated and sealed than the “Vermont mix” house, i.e., they would have greater than 32% of fossil Btu displacement.

 

NOTE: The CEP projects about 80% to 90% fossil Btu displacement by 2050, which clearly is an impossibility without building thousands of NEW HI/HS buildings per year all over Vermont to replace energy-hog buildings, PLUS “deep retrofitting” almost all of the remaining buildings. See Appendix.

 

Here are some heat pump articles

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-oversold-by-...

Comment by Penny Gray on April 3, 2019 at 5:59pm

Kinda makes me wonder if any of the folks steering the renewables boat graduated from high school.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2019   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service