PARTIAL CAPITAL COST OF GREEN NEW DEAL

The Green New Deal, GND, to be implemented by 2030, appears to be an accelerated version of the wind, water, sun, (WWS) Plan by Jacobson, published in 2015, which is aiming to be implemented by 2050.

 

The GND Plan is more extensive in scope and has a shorter timetable than the WWS Plan. Here are some quotes from the GND Plan:

 

- “Upgrade and/or replace every building in America”

- “Replace every internal combustible engine vehicle”

- “Connect every corner of America with high-speed rail”

- “Replace all fossil energy with alternative energy sources”

The GND and WWS Plans would use no fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil), no nuclear and no bio fuels. The latter would be providing just a small percentage of US annual energy, but would require at least 3 times as much area as all of US cropland! See URLs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

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

NOTE: If fossil fuels were banned, how would the people deal with the loss of all plastics, including smart phones, laptop computers and wide screen TV's?  Everything in our modern lives is composed of fossil fuels.  Imagine hospitals with no medical/surgical equipment and roads and runways with no asphalt pavement. That would be the 100% renewables future. Significantly increased, near CO2-free, nuclear electricity would be a much better approach than wind and solar, if GND folks want to maintain their standards of living.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational...

The GND and WWS Plans would use electricity for light duty vehicle transportation (cars, minivans, crossovers, SUVs and 1/4-ton pick-ups), and low/high-speed rail, and would use hydrogen for much of other transportation, including water and air transport.

 

The GND and WWS Plans are for 100% of US primary energy to be supplied by mostly wind, solar and hydro; primary energy for electricity generation is only 40% of all primary energy.

The GND and WWS Plans claim ALL of US energy requirements would be met with the below listed energy sources. The WWS Plan list shows the following:

 

30.9% onshore wind,
19.1% offshore wind,
30.7% utility-scale photo-voltaic (PV),
7.2% rooftop PV,
7.3% concentrated solar power (CSP) with storage,
1.25% geothermal power,
0.37% wave power,
0.14% tidal power, and
3.01% hydroelectric power.

 

That means about:

 

- 87% of wind and solar would be wind and sun dependent, i.e., randomly variable and intermittent

- 7.3% of CSP would be steady and dispatchable, but seasonal (higher in summer, lower in winter)

- 1.25% of geothermal would steady and dispatchable

- 0.37% of wave power would be wind dependent, i.e., randomly variable and intermittent

- 0.14% of tidal power would be steady and dispatchable, but vary with the tides, i.e., diurnal

- 3.01% of hydro power would be steady and dispatchable, but seasonal (highest in spring, lowest in summer)

With at least 87% of variable, intermittent electricity supply (dependent on random wind and sun conditions throughout the year), grid-scale storage would be required to cover daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal variations. The grid-scale storage has to be connected at many places to the existing high voltage grids to ensure 24/7/365 electricity service, at a reliability of at least 99.98%.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35652

 

At present, the US has three grids, the Eastern Interconnect, Western Interconnect and Texas Interconnect that have low capacity, MW, connections. The sun may be shining in the US southwest and the wind may be blowing in West Texas, when simultaneously there is near-zero wind and near-zero solar in New England, such as during 7-day wind/solar lulls, which occur at random throughout the year. Where would the Northeast get its electricity, except from the other grids and/or from storage

1) These articles critique the WWS Plan:

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/review-of-the-100-re-by...

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full.pdf

 

2) This article states, without a fleet of reliable, dispatchable electricity generators able to immediately supply electricity to the grid when wind and solar electricity is dwindling, scenarios with very high renewable energy shares, say 50 to 100%, must rely on prohibitively expensive, long-duration seasonal energy storage.

https://www.innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EIRP-De...

 

But these dispatchable generators must have very low CO2 emissions, i.e., must not be fossil. Only nuclear plants would qualify. The CO2 emissions/kWh of the French electrical system, with 75% from nuclear, are about ten times less than of Germany.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational...

 

3) Becker et al. (2014) determined the optimal mix of wind and solar capacity to supply 100% of U.S. electricity while minimizing energy storage requirements. The authors concluded the minimal storage capacity to ensure demand is reliably met would be to store 15 to 30% of U.S. annual electricity demand, or roughly 8 - 16 weeks of storage.

NOTE:

- The present US grid load (electricity fed to grid) is about 4000 TWh/y.

- With 87% wind and solar on the US grid, storage would need to be, say 15% x 4000 = 600 TWh.

- If batteries were used for storage, the capital cost would be 600 x $400 billion/TWh = $240 TRILLION, at the 2019 price of $400/kWh, or $60 TRILLION at the “Holy Grail” price of $100/TWh. See page 5 of URL.

https://www.innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EIRP-De...

SUMMARY OF PARTIAL CAPITAL COST GREEN NEW DEAL

 

Capital Cost Estimate by Non-Technical Persons

Various non-technical persons have been making estimates of the capital cost of the GND. They overlook grid-scale storage, which is the 800-lb gorilla regarding cost. Wind and solar, at 87% of electricity fed to the grid, could not even exist on the grid without such storage. Here is such an estimate. See URL and table 1.

 

The GND is estimated to cost $700 billion to $1 trillion per year for each of 12 years (2018 - 2030).

- The public jobs program would require expenditures of $400 billion.

- The cost of the transition to clean energy would start at $200 billion a year.

 

The GND would be paid for as follows:

 

- Military spending would be cut by $500 billion per year, or roughly 50 percent.

- A carbon tax of $60 per ton would provide $360 billion per year. Households would pay most of the carbon taxes. Part of the carbon taxes would be provided to lower income households as subsidies to convert to clean energy.

- Higher taxes on income and wealth on the wealthiest Americans. See URL

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-fund-green-deal-know-183003289....

 

Capital Cost Estimate by Energy Systems Analysts

 

Table 1 shows a summary of partial capital costs of the GND*

* The table is not yet complete

 

Table 1/Source

Generation

Capital cost

 

 %

 $billion

Onshore wind

 30

 2282

Offshore wind

 20

1825

Field mounted solar PV

 30

 2282

Rooftop solar PV

 7

 674

CSP w/12-h storage

 7

532

Hydro, reservoir/run-of-river

 3

 

Battery storage, 15% x 8000 TWh @ $400/kWh

15

480000

HVDC overlay grid

 

400

 

NOTE: As a minimum, Table 1 excludes the following items:

 

- Retrofit/replacement of almost all buildings to make them suitable for 100% heating and cooling with heat pumps. Supplementary heating/cooling with hydrogen would be allowed.

- Restructuring most of the US automobile industry

- Replacement of all E10 gasoline light duty vehicles (cars, crossovers, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups) with similar EVs, plus chargers everywhere.

- Replacement of all diesel vehicles, including off-road, farm vehicles and construction vehicles, freight trains, etc., with similar hydrogen-powered vehicles

- A new, nation-wide hydrogen production and distribution system

- Geothermal, wave and tidal were omitted in this analysis, because they would be of minor consequence.

- The daily electricity demand kept near constant by means of real-time supply and demand management.

 

NOTE:

- Battery storage system capacity, distributed throughout the US near load centers, is assumed at about 15% of total future electrical generation fed to grid, i.e., 15% x 8000 = 1200 TWh, delivered as AC to the high voltage grid.

- The capital cost of the storage systems would be about $480 TRILLION, at $400/kWh, about $120 TRILLION, if the Holy Grail price of $100/kWh would be achieved in the future. See URL

- Any electricity passing through battery storage has a loss of about 20%, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up with additional wind and solar generation.

- Battery systems lose about 10% of their storage capacity during their 15-year lifetime, to be made up by installing additional capacity.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powe...

 

NOTE: The mode of operation with grid-scale storage would be:

 

- All variable, intermittent wind and solar generation (87% of total generation), plus other generation would be stored.

Steady electricity would be drawn from storage, based on demand.

- The daily demand of about 8000/365 = 12.37 TWh would be kept near constant by means of real-time supply and demand management.

 

NOTE:

- CSP generation would be about 7% x 8000 = 560 TWh

- Each 150 MW plant would have 12-h of thermal storage to ensure 24/7/365 operation; co-firing with hydrogen would be allowed.

NOTE:

The HVDC overlay grid (at least a $400 billion item) would be connected at many points to the existing HVAC grids, to ensure electricity would be near instantaneously delivered everywhere, 24/7/365, as needed.

 

- The US northeast could be overcast and not windy (wind and solar would be minimal, as happens many times during the year, i.e., almost every early morning and every late afternoon/early evening), but elsewhere, such as in the Colorado region, it could be sunny and windy, enabling any excess wind and solar to be instantaneously transferred, via the overlay HVDC system, to the US northeast.

 

- Tens of millions of EVs could be connected to the grid, each temporarily providing a few kWh to the grid, as needed. The EVs would recharge from the grid at other times, as needed, for driving the next day. Such an electricity reserve could provide about 50 million EVs x 10 kWh/EV/d = 500 million kWh/d = 0.5 TWh/d, less charging and discharging losses.

 

- If New England were to have a 5 to 7 day wind and solar lull in winter, with snow on the panels, and a future load on the grid of 175 TWh/y, the NE shortfall (at 80% wind and solar), would be about 175 x 0.8/365 = 0.38 TWh/d, i.e., the 50 million EVs would cover that shortfall for about one day, provided other random events were absent

 

- Future US generation fed to grid could be about 8000 TWh/y/365 d = 21.92 TWh/d. It appears very significant additional grid-scale storage would be required.

NOTE:

The EV charging and discharging losses are not trivial.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

 

A Tesla model 3 has a charging/rest time loss of about 20%

Assume 15% is due to charging

Assume 5% is due to rest time

 

An EV feeding to the grid 10 kWh would lose 10/0.85 = 11.76 kWh from its battery.

To get that back into the battery, the EV would draw 11.76 x 1.15 = 13.53 kWh from the grid, i.e., a loss of 3.53 kWh for the grid to gain 10 kWh.

 

100% RE is probably possible, which is true, because almost everything is probably possible. The key word is FEASIBLE.

 

Ideally, the world would have 75% of all its primary energy from nuclear; France has proven that feasibility for decades. 

 

A lot of inane nonsense discussions by lay people spread about by the mass media would be avoided and the cost would be far less than all the gymnastics required for 100% renewables.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational...

WIND AND SOLAR SUBSIDIES PROVIDE A BONANZA FOR WALL STREET

 

This URL shows wind and solar prices per kWh would be at least 45% to 55% higher without subsidies, and they would be even higher, if the costs of other items were properly allocated to the owners of wind and solar projects, instead of shifted to others. See below section High Levels of Wind and Solar Require Energy Storage.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powe...

 

This URL shows about 2/3 of the financial value of a wind project is due to direct and indirect subsidies, and the other 1/3 is due to electricity sales.

http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-BigMoney-20050414.pdf

 

An owner of a wind and/or solar project, looking to shelter taxable income from other businesses, is allowed to depreciate in 6 years almost the entire cost of a wind and solar project under the IRS scheme called Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, MARCS; the normal period for other forms of utility depreciation is about 20 years

 

Then, with help of Wall Street financial wizardry from financial tax shelter advisers, such as BNEF*, JPMorgan, etc., the owner sells the project to a new owner who is allowed to depreciate almost his entire cost all over again.

 

Loss of Federal and State Tax Revenues: The IRS estimated the loss of tax revenues to the federal government for the 5y period of 2017 - 2021. See “Energy” heading in URL

The next report would be for the 2018 - 2022 period

https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=select&id=5

 

The indirect largesse, mostly for wind and solar plants^ that produce expensive, variable/intermittent electricity, does not show up in electric rates. It likely is offset by taxes and added to the federal debt.

 

* BNEF is Bloomberg New Energy Finance, owned by the pro-RE former Mayor Bloomberg of New York, which provides financial services to the wealthy of the world, including providing them with tax avoidance schemes.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68227.pdf

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tax-equity-investors-b...

 

Warren Buffett Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e...

NUCLEAR A MORE RATIONAL WAY FORWARD THAN WIND AND SOLAR

 

About 75% nuclear is the best approach to have low CO2/kWh and low household electric prices, c/kWh, as proven by France for decades.

- France CO2/kWh is about 10 times less than German CO2/kWh, which has spent at least $400 billion since 2000 on its ENERGIEWENDE program and has not much to show for it in terms of CO2 reduction. See graph and URLs

- France also has one of the lowest household electric rates, c/kWh, in Europe. See graph and URLs

- Germany and Denmark have highest RE/capita and highest household electric rates, c/kWh, in Europe. See graph and URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational...

http://euanmearns.com/the-causes-of-the-differences-between-europea...

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-...


If the US were to implement the 100% renewable GND plan, but other countries would not, then the US effort to save the world would be futile.

 

The US would be shooting itself in both feet, instead of maximizing the competitive advantage of having lower energy prices than important competitors, such as the EU, Japan and China.

 

Ill-wishers, including many of our so-called "trading partners", likely would be pleased.

HIGH PERCENTAGES OF WIND AND SOLAR REQUIRE ENERGY STORAGE

The GND and WWS Plan, with at least 87% of their electricity supply from variable, intermittent sources (dependent on random wind and sun conditions throughout the year), grid-scale storage would be required to cover daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal variations. The grid-scale storage has to be connected at many places to the existing high voltage grids to ensure 24/7/365 electricity service, at a reliability of at least 99.98%.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35652

 

The graph shows the continuously varying wind and solar generation on the Bonneville Power Administration grid system for a 30-day period. The wind and solar outputs vary all over the place. See URL

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-09-14/how-not-to-run-a-mode...

NOTE: Here is an article containing comments regarding grid stability and less reliability of electricity service, due to increased wind and solar on the NE grid, by the president of ISO-NE, the NE grid operator.

https://www.rtoinsider.com/iso-ne-van-welie-energy-security-111670/  

Europe: It was calculated, the European power grid, with 100% renewable electricity (including 670 GW wind and 810 GW solar) and no balancing capacity, the energy storage capacity, TWh, would need to be about 1.5 times the average monthly grid load, excluding charging and discharging losses. The European grid load (electricity fed to grid) is about 3200 TWh/y, or 267 TWh/month. Storage would be about 1.5 x 267 = 400 TWh AC fed to grid.

 

The US: After the GND Plan is fully implemented, the US power grid, with 87% renewable electricity from wind and solar and about 13% of seasonally varying balancing capacity, such as CSP and hydro, the energy storage capacity would need to be about 15% of 8000 = 1200 TWh, as AC fed to grid

.  

GRID-SCALE STORAGE ON THE NEW ENGLAND GRID WITH 80% WIND AND SOLAR

 

Power Sources: Here is an example of grid-scale storage for the NE grid with a load of 125 TWh/y. Assume the power sources would be:

 

1) About 80% wind and solar

2) A few percent from NE hydro plants

3) A few percent from NE wood burning power plants

4) A few percent from NE municipal refuse power plants

5) A few percent of Canadian hydro via tie-ins to nearby grids.

6) All coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants are closed.

 

Mode of Operation: The mode of operation with grid-scale storage would be:

 

- All wind and solar generation, plus other generation would be stored.

Steady electricity would be drawn from storage, based on demand.

- The storage system would perform peaking, filling-in, and balancing services

- The daily demand of about 125 TWh/365 = 0.342 TWh would be kept near constant by means of real-time supply and demand management.

 

Comments on Energy Balance: The below graph is based on minute-by-minute generation and demand data published by ISO-NE, the grid operator.

 

- High outputs of wind and hydro are in excess of demand in the early months of the year; storage is increased.

- Low outputs of wind and hydro are less than demand during summer; storage is reduced, because solar in summer is nor sufficient to offset the reducing trend.

- High outputs of wind and hydro are in excess of demand in the later months of the year; storage is increased again.

- The graph excludes charging and discharging losses. See URL

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

http://euanmearns.com/a-brief-review-of-the-new-england-electricity...

http://www.hanswernersinn.de/dcs/2017%20Buffering%20Volatility%20EE...

 

Round-trip Storage Losses: Electricity entering storage would be about 9.7 TWh, as AC from high voltage grid; electricity in storage would be about 8.6 TWh as DC; electricity delivered from storage would be about 8 TWh, as AC to high voltage grid.

 

Maintaining Minimum Storage: The storage system would need on-demand standby generation, such as hydrogen or natural gas powered combined-cycle, gas turbine, CCGT, plants, to maintain about 3 TWh in storage at all times, i.e., about 3/0.342 = 8.8 days of demand coverage, to cover:

 

1) Multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages

2) Unusual multi-day weather events, such as simultaneous minimal wind and solar. See graph.

PRESENT US ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

In 2017, US electricity consumption was about 3820 TWh, at user meters.

In 2017, US retail electricity sales were about 3680 TWh, or 96% of US electricity consumption.

Direct use of electricity by all end-use sectors was about 140 TWh. It likely is metered by users, but not fed to the grid. See Note.

The US electricity sales to major consuming sectors and percent share of total electricity sales in 2017 are shown in table 2

NOTE: "Direct use" electricity is mostly:

- Self-generated by process and manufacturing, plants, etc.

- Self-generated by rooftop solar, etc.

Table 2/Category

 TWh

 %

Residential

 1380

 37.4

Commercial

 1350

 36.6

Industrial

 950

 25.7

Transportation

 10

 0.2

 

Electricity is an essential part of modern life and important to the U.S. economy. People use electricity for lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public transportation systems.

 

Electricity use in the United States in 2017 was more than 13 times greater than in 1950. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/print.php?page=electricity_use

 

After all the energy efficiency measures are implemented throughout the economy (not just buildings), and all the buildings are retrofitted, and much of transportation and other parts of the economy run on electricity and hydrogen, the US electricity generation, fed to grid, likely would be at least 8000 TWh/y.

REPLACING FUEL OIL WITH HEAT PUMPS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

 

About 5.7 million US households use fuel oil as their main space heating fuel. Some households also use heating oil for domestic hot water heating, but in much smaller amounts than what they use for space heating.

 

Because space heating is the primary use of fuel oil, demand is highly seasonal, and is affected by the weather. Most fuel oil consumption occurs during October through March.

Most residential fuel oil consumers are in the Northeast

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/print.php?page=heating_oil_use

 

About 20% of households in the Northeast Census region use fuel oil as their main fuel space heating, and they account for about 80% of the U.S. households that use heating oil for space heating.

 

In 2017, about 3 billion gallons of fuel oil oil were sold to residential consumers in the Northeast, which represented about 85% of total U.S. residential fuel oil oil sales.

In 2017, about 35% of total commercial sector consumption of fuel oil was in the Northeast.

 

The number of houses with heating systems using fuel oil is decreasing, because owners are increasingly converting to other types of heating systems. Most new residences use natural gas, propane or electricity for heating.

If all these houses were converted to heat pumps, electricity generation would need to be: 43.34 TWh, to heat pumps + 2.82, T&D loss = 46.15 TWh fed to grid. See table 3.

All those residential buildings would have to be modified, i.e., highly sealed/highly insulated, to make them suitable for heating 100% with heat pumps. See note.

NOTE:

1) A typical “Vermont mix” house, 2000 sq ft, requires for space heating about 64000 Btu/h at -20F outdoor and 65F indoor (85F temperature difference), and requires for space cooling about 20,000 Btu/h at 100F outdoor, and 70F indoor (30F temperature difference). Heat pumps would provide about 32% to 34% of the heat during the heating season, with the rest provided by the conventional system and would provide 100% of space cooling. 

Government heat pump programs, such as in Vermont and Maine, which subsidize the installation of heat pumps in such houses would have unacceptable outcomes, if the goal is minimal CO2. See URLs.

 

2) A highly sealed/highly insulated house in Vermont, 2000 sq ft, requires for space heating about 17000 Btu/h at -20F outdoor and 65F indoor, and requires for space cooling about 5,000 Btu/h at 100F outdoor and 70F indoor (30F temperature difference). Heat pumps would provide 100% of space heating and cooling.

 

Such a house would be about 10% more expensive than a “Vermont mix” house, because it would require an R-20 basement, R-40 walls, R-60 roof, triple-glazed windows (R-7 to R-10) and insulated doors (R-8 to R-10), and its leakage rate would have to be less than 0.6 air changes per hour, ACH, @ -50 pascal, as verified by a blower door test. In Vermont, about 1% of all housing is highly sealed/highly insulated.

These URLs describe what happens, if heat pumps are installed in energy-hog houses in Vermont and Maine.

 

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

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

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

Table 3

Total NE fuel oil sales to residences, billion gal

3.000

0.85

Total US fuel oil sales to residences, billion gal

3.529

LHV fuel oil, Btu/gal

128488

Fuel heat to furnaces, TBtu

453.487

Average winter season efficiency

0.75

Heat to buildings, TBtu

340.115

Average winter COP of heat pump

2.3

Btu/kWh

3412

Electricity to heat pumps, TWh

43.34

T&D loss, fraction

0.065

Fed to grid, TWh

46.15

Power plant self-use loss, fraction

0.035

Gross generation, TWh

47.77

REPLACING NATURAL GAS WITH HEAT PUMPS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

 

About 69 million US households use natural gas as their main space heating fuel. Most of those households also use gas for domestic hot water heating and cooking, but in much smaller amounts than what they use for space heating.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37433

 

If all these houses were converted to heat pumps, electricity generation would need to be: 305.35 TWh, to heat pumps + 18.64, T&D loss = 305.35 TWh fed to grid. See table 4

 

All those residential buildings would have to be modified, i.e., highly sealed/highly insulated, to make them suitable for space heating 100% with heat pumps.

 

Table 4/

Gas consumption, space heating, quad

3

Average seasonal efficiency

0.75

Fuel heat to furnaces, TBtu

2250

Average COP of heat pump

2.3

Btu/kWh

3412

Electricity to heat pumps, TWh

286.71

T&D loss, fraction

0.065

Fed to grid, TWh

305.35

Power plant self-use loss, fraction

0.035

Gross generation, TWh

316.04

REPLACING GASOLINE WITH ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES

 

- US E10 gasoline travel was 2849.718 billion miles in 2017, per EIA

- “In battery” for a mix of LDVs is assumed at 0.350 kWh/mile

- EV charging, resting time loss is about 20%

- Transmission and distribution loss is about 6.5%

 

Electricity generation required for charging EVs would be about 2849.718 gal/y x 0.350 kWh/gal x 1.2 x 1.065, T&D = 1275 TWh/y fed to grid, which would be in addition to the current US generation fed to grid of about 4000 TWh/y. Generating all that electricity with hydro, wind and solar would require enormous investments.

REPLACING DIESEL FUEL WITH HYDROGEN FOR LAND TRANSPORT AND OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

- Electricity from wind and solar would be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

- The hydrogen would be compressed at high pressure in containers, which would be distributed to users.

- Electricity required would be about 60 kWh/kg of hydrogen

- The user price of hydrogen would be about $10/kg.

- The lower heating value of H2 is 113819 Btu/kg

- The LHV of diesel fuel is 128488 Btu/gal 

- H2-powered vehicles have about 2 times the mileage of ICVs, i.e., to displace 1.0 gallon of diesel fuel, about 0.565 kg of H2 is required, equivalent to $5.65/gal of diesel fuel.

- US diesel consumption was 45.833 billion gal in 2017, per EIA

 

Electricity required by H2 production plants would be about 45.833 billion gal/y x 0.565 kg of H2/gal of diesel x 60 kWh/kg of H2 x 1.065, T&D = 1653 TWh/y fed to grid, which would be in addition to the current US generation fed to grid of about 4000 TWh/y.

Producing H2 for water and air transport would be in addition.

Generating all that electricity with hydro, wind and solar would require enormous investments.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hydrogen-economy

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

http://www.airproducts.com/Company/news-center/2017/03/0306-air-pro...

http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/california/los-angeles/

Table 4A/LHV diesel, Btu/gal

128488

LHV hydrogen, Btu/kg

64244

113819

kg of H2 to displace one gal of diesel

0.564

Diesel, billion gal in 2017

45.833

Electricity, kWh/kg of H2

60

T&D loss

0.065

Electricity required, TWh/y

1653

WIND; 30% Onshore, 20% Offshore

 

If the US were to have 30% of its electricity from onshore wind, it would need to install 23,046 wind turbines/y, each 3 MW, at a cost of $63 billion/y for 12 years, for a total of $2,282 billion. The required area would be about 44,075 sq mi

 

If the US were to have 20% of its electricity from offshore wind, it would need to install 3558 wind turbines/y, each 9.5 MW, at a cost of $76 billion/y for 12 years, for a total of $1,825 billion. The required sea area would be about 70,578 sq mi

See tables 5 and 6

Table 2 shows the onshore and offshore parameters. Capital costs include grid expansion

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

Table 5/Wind

Generation fed to grid, TWh/y

8000

Onshore CF

0.33

Offshore CF

0.45

Onshore wind turbine capacity, MW

3

Offshore wind turbine capacity, MW

9.5

h/y

8766

Area per onshore wind turbine, acre/MW

102

Area per offshore wind turbine, acre/MW

245

Acre/sq mile

640

Installation period, years

12

Onshore capital cost, $/MW

2750000

Offshore capital cost, $/MW

4500000

 

Table 6 shows wind turbine requirements for increasing wind as a percent of generation fed to grid

 

Table 6/Wind

Onshore

Install rate

Cap cost

Offshore

Install rate

Cap cost

Wind Turbines

Area

Wind Turbines

Area

%

sq mi

turbine/y

$billion/y

sq mi

turbine/y

$billion/y

10

92184

14692

7682

63

21348

35289

1779

76

20

184367

29383

15364

127

42696

70578

3558

152

30

276551

44075

23046

190

64043

105867

5337

228

40

368734

58767

30728

254

85391

141156

7116

304

50

460918

73459

38410

317

106739

176445

8895

380

60

553101

88150

46092

380

128087

211734

10674

456

70

645285

102842

53774

444

149434

247023

12453

532

80

737468

117534

61456

507

170782

282312

14232

608

90

829652

132226

69138

570

192130

317601

16011

684

100

921835

146917

76820

634

213478

352890

17790

761

.

Onshore

Offshore

Capital cost, $b

2282

1825

PV SOLAR; 7% Rooftop, 30% Field-mounted

If the US were to have 7% of its electricity from house rooftop PV solar, it would need to install 2,464,629 systems/y, each 6 kW, at a cost of $56 billion/y for 12 years, for a total of $674 billion.

 

If the US were to have 30% of its electricity from field-mounted PV solar, it would need to install 63,376 systems/y, each 1000 kW, at a cost of $190 billion/y for 12 years, for a total of $2,282 billion. The required area would be about 8,318 sq mi

See tables 7 and 8

Table 7 shows the onshore and offshore parameters. Capital costs include grid expansion

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

 

Table 7/Solar

House rooftop

Field-mounted

PV solar

PV solar

Generation fed to grid, TWh/y

4000

4000

Average CF

0.18

0.18

Average system, kW

6

1000

h/y

8766

8766

Area, acre/MW

7

Acre/sq mile

640

Installation period, years

12

12

Capital cost, $/kW

3800

Capital cost, $/kW

3000

Table 8 shows system requirements for increasing PV solar as a percent of generation fed to grid

 

Table 8/PV solar

House rooftop

Install rate

Cap cost

Field-mounted

Install rate

Cap cost

PV solar

PV solar

Area

%

Systems

system/y

$billion/y

Systems

sq mi

systems/y

$billion/y

7

29575549

2464629

56

177453

1941

14788

44

10

42250784

3520899

80

253505

2773

21125

63

20

84501568

7041797

161

507009

5545

42251

127

30

126752351

10562696

241

760514

8318

63376

190

40

169003135

14083595

321

1014019

11091

84502

254

50

211253919

17604493

401

1267524

13864

105627

317

60

253504703

21125392

482

1521028

16636

126752

380

70

295755486

24646291

562

1774533

19409

147878

444

80

338006270

28167189

642

2028038

22182

169003

507

90

380257054

31688088

722

2281542

24954

190129

570

100

422507838

35208986

803

2535047

27727

211254

634

House rooftop

Field-mounted

Capital cost, $b

674

2282

HYDRO

 

US total generation was about 4034.3 TWh, fed to grid, in 2017

US hydro generation was about 300 TWh in 2017

US renewable generation, other than hydro, was about 333 TWh in 2017; includes wind; solar after the meter, etc.; bio burning for power generation

US PV solar generation, before the meter, was estimated at about 24 TWh in 2017; not included in US total generation

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epm...

CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER

The CSP systems would consist of large arrays of solar energy collectors that heat an organic liquid to about 800F. The hot liquid is stored in insulated tanks. Steam is generated to operate a conventional power plant. The plant would need at least 12 hours of hot liquid storage to be able to operate 24/7/365, without co-firing with fossil fuels; co-firing with hydrogen to increase the capacity factor would be allowed.

 

A large number of such plants, each about 150 MW, located in the sunny US southwest, could provide electricity to the rest of the US during too low levels of wind and solar.

If the US were to have 7% of 8000 = 560 TWh/y from CSP, it would require 710 plants, each 150 MW with 12-h of thermal storage to ensure continuous operation 24/7/365, located in the US southwest, at a cost of about $532 billion. See table 9.

Table 9/CSP

US generation fed to grid, TWh

8000

CSP, %

7

CSP, TWh/y

560

Plants

710

Capital cost, $/MW

5000000

Capital cost

532

Plant capacity, MW

150

Capacity factor, CF

0.6

h/y

8766

Plant output, TW/y

0.78894

 

HIGH LEVELS OF WIND AND SOLAR REQUIRE ENERGY STORAGE

There is no operational and cost equivalence of traditional generators and wind and solar, because wind and solar could not even exist on the grid without all sorts of support structures.

 

These support structures have to be capable of serving almost all of electricity demand 24/7/365, because large areas of the US may have near-zero wind and near-zero solar for 5 to 7 days, several times each year. Such events occur at random. These articles describe those random events in New England.

 

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

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

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

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

High levels of wind and solar, say 40% to 87% of US grid load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the US grid having:

 

1) Gas turbine plants and

2) Reservoir and run-of-river hydro plants, and

3) CSP plants with at least 12 hours of storage and

4) A US-wide HVDC overlay grid (as above described), and

5) Energy storage of about 1200 TWh (at the 87% wind and solar of the WWS plan).

6) Weather prediction systems to more accurately predict likely wind and solar conditions.

7) Increased efforts imposed on grid operators to manage higher levels of wind and solar.

NOTE: Gas turbines would have increased wear and tear while engaged in peaking, filling-in and balancing of variable wind and solar. Those costs are not charged to owners of wind and solar.

 

The first 5 items would quickly vary their outputs, as needed, to compensate for:

 

1) The quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very low outputs of wind and solar, which occur at random at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by various grid operators, including ISO-NE.

 

2) The minute-by-minute varying electricity demand throughout each day.

 

Any owning and operating costs associated with the above 7 support structures are not charged to owners of wind and solar systems. The costs not charged to owners, plus the benefits of direct and indirect subsidies, as above described, enable these owners and various pro-RE folks to incessantly repeat the popularized fantasy "wind and solar are cost competitive with fossil and nuclear". Nothing could be further from reality.

NOTE: The generating plants of items 1 and 2 typically provide the peaking, filling-in and balancing on grids with wind and solar less than about 30%, as in Germany, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, etc. In addition, these countries have robust connections to nearby grids to export/import electricity, as needed, to help balance their grids.

NOTE: During high winds,

Turbine rotor blades are feathered when winds exceed allowable speeds.
The turbine output would be maintained at about 95% of rated output. See graph
Those conditions are very rare in most US areas, may be up to 100 to 150 hours per year.
The average output of all US wind turbines is about 33%; it varies with the windiness of the year.

 

NOTE: In Ireland, the gas turbine plants that vary their outputs 24/7/365 to compensate for the variation and intermittency of wind, instead of operating at an average efficiency of about 50% without wind, end up operating with an efficiency of about 41% with wind, due to 1) increased part load operation, 2) increased up/down ramping operation,3) increased hot synchronous standby operation, and 4) increased start/stop operation. As a result, the predicted reduction of gas consumption is much less and the predicted reduction of CO2 is much less. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions...

 

ENERGY STORAGE

 

Battery Charging and Discharging Losses: Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.

 

Battery Capacity Losses: Batteries lose about 10 to 15% of their capacity, kWh, during their lifetime, which means additional capacity has to be installed to offset that loss.

 

Battery Lives: The useful service lives of lithium-ion batteries are at most 15 years. In about year 15, the used-up batteries would need to be replaced with new ones.

 

Electric Vehicle Charging and Resting Losses: Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 25% to 30% charging/vampire loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, depending on driving it in Southern California or in upstate New York or New England. That loss has to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

 

Additional sources of information:

 

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

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

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/nuclear-a-more-rational...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/synapse-study-of-new-en...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/land-and-sea-area-for-v...

APPENDIX 1

The issue of high household prices due to wind and solar is worldwide.

Per the AEMO report on South Australia:

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_...

 

It seems SA installed wind and solar capacity is 2047 MW and there are about 1.7 million inhabitants. Current electricity price is 37.8c/kWh (AUS $), per this URL 

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-south-australias-hig...

 

AUS $ = 0.71 US $, so the price point on the above scatter plot would be 26.8 c/kWh, a little lower than Germany and Denmark, but pretty close.

Views: 477

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 Thinklike A. Mountain on September 16, 2019 at 1:58pm

Green Trojan Horse: Socialism, Climate Change, and Depopulation
February 13, 2019 12 Comments

The progressive left is praising Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal, a plan devised by socialists to save the planet from global climate change. It will require impossible changes—for instance, getting rid of our petroleum-based civilization—and plans to pay for it by taxing the rich. Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal hides a sinister plan—the creation of a global socialist government lorded over by a hereditary elite and its financial class. This is a forbidden subject and its mere mention will get you tagged as a crazy conspiracy theorist despite ample evidence the elite have used environmentalism for decades to force their agenda on humanity. Newsbud and a handful of other news and information sites believe it is important to talk about forbidden topics and taboos that expose the ruling elite agenda to turn the world into a prison planet where eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion will be used—along with war and bioengineered pestilence—to reduce world population. At Newsbud, we’re dedicated to bringing you the unvarnished truth despite the penalties now being used to destroy alternative media—deplatforming, demonitizing, and blocking all avenues of financial support, from having bank accounts closed down, and social media corporations refusing to allow us to advertise on their platforms. Newsbud is truly independent. We depend on your donations and subscriptions to keep us going and making a difference. Please take the time to make a donation or get a subscription. It’s imperative as many people as possible have access to news and information the elite and their corporate media deny you as part of its effort to keep you in perpetual ignorance.

https://www.newsbud.com/2019/02/13/green-trojan-horse-socialism-cli...

Comment by arthur qwenk on February 10, 2019 at 6:37pm

Ocasio - Cortez's comments to this.

"What's math, I got through Boston University economics classes  without it,

 do you wish to have another martini" ?

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on February 10, 2019 at 3:41pm

Some math to get the point across: The Green New Deal is insane
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/some_math_to_get_the_p...

 

Ocasio-Cortez's plan properly should be called the 'Green Leap Forward'
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/ocasiocortezs_plan_pro...

Trump Tells Democrats To Embrace Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/09/trump-democrats-embrace-green-ne...

Watch: Ocasio-Cortez Gaslights ‘Green New Deal’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/07/green-raw-deal-global-warmin...

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