VERMONT EXAMPLE OF ELECTRICITY STORAGE WITH TESLA POWERPACKS

Currently, we have energy storage in the form of fossilized carbon deposits. A stream of energy is being extracted from mines and wells to keep the world going; about 40% of that stream is used to generate electricity. Many 100% RE proponents, almost all of them never designed or analyzed any energy system, want to stop that stream; "leave it in the ground".

 

They would substitute the stream with weather and sun dependent, variable, intermittent, wind and solar, and with bio and hydro. If the “leave it in the ground” mantra were implemented by government mandate, very large capacity energy storage would be needed. This has been obvious to most energy systems analysts for at least several decades, but apparently not to the misinformed general public.

 

Some people, such as Professor Mark Jacobson at Stanford University in California, advocate the US could supply ALL of its energy needs, not just for electricity, from wind, solar and hydro. Storage would be required for performing most of the peaking, filling-in and balancing services of the grid. Those services would be greatly increased with higher levels of variable, intermittent wind and solar energy. He calls it the WWS approach.

 

In New England, that would mean shutting down nuclear, gas, coal and oil plants and replacing them with wind and solar systems, adding storage and grid enhancements. The turnkey capital cost would be several TRILLION dollars, if batteries were used for storage.

 

The capital cost would be marginally decreased, if electricity from refuse, wood, landfill gas, methane and NE hydro were increased, but those quantities could be increased at most by 2.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.0 and 1.2 times, respectively. Because the GWh increases would be small, they were ignored in this analysis. See table 3.

Increasing electricity from:

- Refuse would require an NE mandate,

- Wood likely would not be prudent, as NE harvests already are at about 50% of net growth rate.

- NE hydro would require extensive plant upgrades. Any new sites would have small MW capacities. 

However, the capital costs would be significantly decreased, if electricity via tie lines were doubled. See Appendix.

Capital Cost Summary

 

After the NE nuclear, gas, coal and oil plants are shut down, the NE electricity system would need about 19,602 MW of wind and 38,479 MW of solar capacity. The cost would be about $201 billion.

 

Adding existing hydro, refuse, wood, landfill gas and methane, and external ties (almost all hydro), RE would be about 90%. However, refuse, wood, landfill gas and methane would not be CO2-free. See table 3.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-wood-burning-carbon-...

 

An additional 5,300 MW of gas turbine plants would be needed to ensure a minimum storage of 3 TWh or greater is maintained at all times, especially during multi-day wind and solar lulls during December through February, when solar is minimal or near-zero, with snow and ice on the panels. The cost would be about $5.8 billion. See below energy balance graph, prepared by Roger Andrews, founding member of Energy Matters.

 

A minimum of 3 TWh or a maximum of about 8 TWh of battery storage capacity would also be needed for peaking, filling-in and balancing to ensure electricity delivery 24/7/365. The cost would be about $1407 billion or $3752 billion, respectively. A major part of that cost would recur about every 12 - 15 years. See Appendix.

 

Vermont’s share of those costs would be about 5%, or $81 billion (3 TWh) and $199 billion (8 TWh), respectively.

Flattening the Daily Demand Curve by Load Shifting

All these costs would be greatly reduced, if daytime demands could be partially shifted to nighttime. The seasonal storage systems would be more than capable to temporarily store any excess electricity generated during 6 am and 11 pm, and supply it during 11 pm to 6 am, i.e., daily shifting.

 

Flattening the daily demand curve would significantly decrease annual energy consumption because of much higher efficiencies, and the capital cost because of lesser capacities of wind, solar, transmission/distribution and other systems:

 

- If buildings were highly insulated and sealed (zero-net energy, or energy surplus), they would cool down or warm up very slowly, even though the outdoor temperature would have significant variations. Such buildings could be pre-heated or pre-cooled a few hours before 6 am.

- If plug-in, all electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids were charged at night.

- If washer/dryers were operated at night.

- If more industries and businesses performed a part of their operations on a 24-h basis.

NOTE: Solar systems on local distribution grids have varying outputs, especially during variable cloudy weather. Such distribution grids would still need batteries, such as Tesla Powerpack 2.0s, to dampen excessive variations. That damping is a separate issue and has nothing to do with daily shifting and seasonal shifting. The costs of those batteries are not charged to solar system owners (the disturbers), but to all ratepayers; just another example of making the cost of solar electricity, c/kWh, appear less than in reality.

NE Grid Generation and Load Before Plant Shutdowns

Below is the New England electricity generation from various sources for 2017. Because variable, intermittent wind and solar total about 3.44%, they have very little destabilizing impact on the NE grid at present. Some NE states count hydro as renewable, such as Vermont, others do not. See Appendix.

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

 

Table 1/New England 2017	GWh (a)	% of Generation	% of NE Load
Total Generation (b)	102,534	100.00	84.70
Gas	49,198	47.98	40.64
Nuclear	31,538	30.76	26.05
Renewables	10,830	10.56	8.95
- Wind	3,280	3.20	2.71
- Refuse	3,165	3.09	2.61
- Wood	3,014	2.94	2.49
- Solar	880	0.86	0.73
- Landfill Gas	447	0.44	0.37
- Methane	44	0.04	0.04
- Steam	0	0.00	0.00
Hydro	8,572	8.36	7.08
Coal	1,684	1.64	1.39
Oil	696	0.68	0.57
Other (c)	14	0.01	0.01
Net Flow over External Ties (d)	20,243		16.72
Québec	14,401		11.90
New Brunswick	4,306		3.56
New York	1,536		1.27
Pumping Load (e)	-1,716		-1.42
Net Energy for Load (f)	121,061		100.00

 

Replacing Gas, Nuclear, Coal and Oil by Wind and Solar: The total electricity loss due to plant shutdowns would be as shown in table 2.

 

Table 2/Source/2017	Generation GWh
Gas	49,198
Nuclear	31,538
Coal	1,684
Oil	696
Total shutdowns	83,116

NE Grid Generation and Load After Plant Shutdowns

Below is the New England electricity generation from various sources after closing down the above plants, adding wind, solar and storage for 2017.

- Total generation would increase 1.24 times, wind 14.3 times, and solar 50.5 times.

- Variable renewables would be 62.87% of the NE system load.

- Total renewables would be 70.25% of the NE system load.

- Adding existing hydro, refuse, wood, landfill gas and methane, and external ties (almost all hydro), RE would be 70.25 + 5.90 +13.93 = 90.08% of the NE system load. See table 3.

 

Table 3/New England 2017	2017		2017 with storage	NE load
	GWh (a)		GWh	%
Total Generation (b)	102,534	1.2361	126742	87.25
Gas	49,198			0.00
Nuclear	31,538			0.00
Renewables	10,830		102045	70.25
- Wind	3,280	14.3	46863	32.26
- Refuse	3,165	1	3165	2.18
- Wood	3,014	1	3014	2.07
- Solar	880	50.5	44463	30.61
- Landfill Gas	447	1	447	0.31
- Methane	44	1	44	0.03
- Steam	0	1	0	0.00
Hydro	8,572	1	8572	5.90
Coal	1,684			0.00
Oil	696			0.00
Other (c)	14	1	14	0.01
Net Flow over External Ties (d)	20,243	1	20243	13.93
Québec	14,401	1	14401	9.91
New Brunswick	4,306	1	4306	2.96
New York	1,536	1	1536	1.06
				0.00
Pumping Load (e)	-1,716	1	-1716	-1.18
Net Energy for Load (f)	121,061	1.200	145,269	100.00
Storage energy loss			24208

Wind and Solar System Capacity and Cost

Wind System Capacity and Cost: (1.1, redundancy x 46863 x 1000)/(8766 x 0.30) = 19,602 MW of wind turbines, at a cost of about $44.5 billion for turbines, plus about $5 billion for transmission = $54.0 billion.

 

Solar System Capacity and Cost: (1.1, redundancy x 44463 x 1000/2)/(8766 x 0.145) = 38,479 MW of solar panels, at a cost of $122.4 billion for solar, plus about $12 billion for transmission = $146.7 billion.

 

- If off-shore wind were implemented (as it was by government mandate in Massachusetts), the capital costs for the off-shore part would be about 2 times on-shore. The capacity factors would be higher, but the c/kWh would be at least 2 times on-shore. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-very-expensive-offsho...

 

- The high solar share assumes solar collectors would be integrated into roofs and walls of future buildings, and that such buildings would be highly insulated and sealed, and many such buildings would be energy-surplus buildings, with battery storage, so they could charge plug-ins at night.

 

Electricity Storage Balance

NE Storage Balance and Multi-Day Lulls of Wind and Solar: The below storage balance shows NE electricity from all sources delivered to the grid throughout the year. The graph does not reflect the 20% loss.

 

If a multi-day wind and solar lull, or 2 consecutive such lulls, would occur in December through February, there would be available less 3 TWh as AC to the grid.

 

Electricity fed to the NE grid (with storage) would be 145,269 GWh in 2017, or 398 GWh/d. Wind and solar would be 32.26 + 30.61 = 62.87% of the 398 GWh/d. See table 3.

 

During 2 consecutive 4-day wind and solar lulls in winter, when snow and ice could be covering the panels, and unscheduled outages (equipment failure) could occur, the missing electricity would be at least 8 d x 0.6287 x 398 = 2 TWh, which would leave less than 1 TWh in storage, i.e., what may appear adequate and safe, in fact, is not. See below storage balance graph.

 

NE Storage Balance and September/October Period: The storage balance shows zero electricity in storage. Only the remaining traditional electricity (37.13%), plus variable wind and solar, would be available. The traditional electricity could satisfy about (3165, refuse + 3014, wood + 447, landfill gas + 44, methane + 8572, NE Hydro + 20243, external ties) GWh/y/(8766 h/y) = 4,050 MW of the demand.

 

Early morning demand (without storage; wind and solar typically near zero) could be about 12000 MW, a generation shortfall of about 8,000 MW, which could be provided by the 3 TWh maintained in storage throughout the year, or by the standby gas turbines. See next section.

 

Late afternoon/early evening demand (without storage; solar and wind typically near zero) could be about 26000 MW, a generation shortfall of about 22,000 MW, which could be provided by the 3 TWh maintained in storage throughout the year, or partially by the 15,300 MW of standby gas turbines. See next section.

 

It should be abundantly clear to everyone, a major rethink is required before traditional generating facilities are shutdown. Reliable replacement electricity has to be in place before any shutdown.

 

Service Reliability and Standby Gas Turbines

Modern grids require a service reliability of 99.98% or better. That means at least 3 TWh of storage should exist at all times to cover scheduled (maintenance), unscheduled (equipment failure), and weather-related outages of the generation, distribution, storage and fuel supply systems*. That means, when wind and solar lulls do occur, a complement of standby gas turbines must be available to maintain storage at 3 TWh or greater, throughout the year.

 

* During the very cold weather of the 2017/2018-winter period, with high electricity demand, one of the transmission lines of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant failed. The shortfall in electricity had to be made up by gas turbine plants, but many of them were burning fuel oil instead of gas, because gas had been diverted to building and other heating needs. All of a sudden, there was a scramble to get more fuel oil. A French LNG carrier just happened to arrive from Europe to deliver much needed gas at a high price, $/million Btu. Subsequently, ISO-NE, the grid operator, had to admit it was a miracle the grid did not have rolling blackouts.

 

During the (2) 4-day lulls in winter (192 hours), the solar contribution should be assumed at zero, as solar would be minimal in December through February, and solar panels could be covered with snow and ice. Only wind should be assumed to provide the variable RE on the grid (62.87%). A 1.1 redundancy is applied to cover scheduled (maintenance), unscheduled (equipment failure), and weather-related outages.

 

The gas turbine capacity to cover (2) 4-day lulls would be = (1.1, redundancy x 8 d x 1.2, storage loss factor x 0.6287 x 398 GWh/d x 1000)/(192 h x 0.90) = 15,291 MW.

 

At present, NE already has at least 10,000 MW of gas turbines plants in operation to generate about 50% of NE annual electricity. See table 1. By inspecting the graph, a fraction of the gas turbine capacity would operate about 500 hours of the year to maintain storage at 3 TWh or greater, throughout the year.

NE Storage Capacity and Cost After Plant Shutdowns

The Tesla Powerpack system in Australia, the largest in the world, has a rated capacity of 100 MW/129 MWh delivered as AC. The system:

 

1) Smoothens the variable output of a nearby 315 MW French-owned wind turbine system,

2) Prevents load-shedding blackouts and

3) Provides stability to the grid, during times other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.

 

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

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-a...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm

 

The NE storage capacity should be adequate to deliver about 8 TWh as AC to the grid. See storage balance graph. The NE grid, on average, delivers 16,600 MW of power for 24 hours (398 GWh/d). If wind and solar were a large percentage of the electricity supply to the grid, and if there were a multi-day wind and solar lull in winter, likely with snow and ice on the solar panels, it would take many thousands of above Tesla Powerpack systems to supply electricity to the grid to serve demand, which could peak at 26,000 MW on cold winter days. The storage system would have to be capable to serve most of that peak.

 

1) Maximum storage would be about 8 TWh delivered as AC to the grid. See table 4 and storage balance graph.

Powerpacks required = 1.1, redundancy x 8 billion kWh as AC/129,000 kWh as AC = 68,217

Total site area = 682,170 acres.

Cost = 68,217 x $50 million = $3752 billion.

 

2) Minimum storage would be about 3 TWh delivered as AC to the grid. See below storage balance graph

Powerpacks required = 1.1, redundancy x 3 billion kWh as AC/129,000 kWh as AC = 25,581

Total site area = 255,810 acres.

Cost = 25,581 x $50 million = $1407 billion.

Table 4	Maximum	Minimum
Storage, TWh delivered as AC	8	3
Powerpack, 100 MWh/129 MWh	129	129
Redundancy	1.1	1.1
Powerpacks required	68217	25581
Unit cost, $million	50	50
Powerpack cost, $billion	3752	1407

 

Vermont Capital Cost Share: Above costs would be allocated to each NE state, Vermont's share would be as shown in table 5.

 

Table 5/Storage	8 TWh	3 TWh
Wind and solar systems	200.7	200.7
Standby gas turbines	5.82	5.82
Storage	3752	1407
Total capital cost	3958	1613
NE load, GWh	121061	121061
VT load, GWh	6100	6100
VT load share	0.05	0.05
VT capital cost share	199	81

APPENDIX 1

1) The electricity of local distribution grids with many solar systems likely would be destabilized during variable cloudy weather, often requiring batteries, such as Tesla Powerwall 2.0s, to attenuate the disturbances, as in southern Germany and southern California. Northern Germany exports its excess wind electricity, via Denmark, for balancing by Norway’s hydro plants.

 

2) On the German and California grids, midday solar often is so high that traditional generators cannot ramp down fast enough, and much of that highly subsidized, expensive solar electricity needs to be exported at near-zero wholesale prices, or negative prices, to nearby grids; France balances it with its hydro plants.

 

3) In 2017, Germany had total generation fed to grid of 654.8 TWh, of which 139.5 TWh was wind and solar; stochastic percent = 21%. Germany exported 83.3 TWh, usually during high wind and solar generation, and imported 28.4 TWh, usually during low wind and solar generation. Without that “safety valve”, Germany could not have that much wind and solar on its grid, because the traditional generators likely could not cope with it.

 

APPENDIX 2

A 4-Day Wind and Solar Lull Followed by a 4-Day Wind and Solar Lull 6 days Later: Let us see how much battery storage would be needed during a 4-day wind lull, followed by six days of windy weather, followed by another 4-day wind lull, during winter, when solar likely would be minimal, especially on overcast days with snow and ice on solar panels. Such lulls occurred in Germany in late 2016.

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

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

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

APPENDIX 3

Powerwall 2.0 cost: The list price for a new Tesla Powerwall 2.0 battery, which offers twice the storage capacity of the original Powerwall, is $5,500. Supporting hardware adds another $700 to the equipment costs, bringing the total to $6,200. Installation can add anywhere from $2,000 to $8,000 to the final bill.

 

It is important to note that the list prices you see don't include the cost of installing your Powerwall on your property. Tesla estimates that installation will add $800 to $2,000 to your bill. However, this estimate doesn't include the cost of electrical upgrades, taxes, permit fees, or connection charges. EnergySage users have reported installation costs that add anywhere from $5,000 to $8,000 (before any financial incentives are applied). The final number will be dependent on the specifics of your installation.

 

The Powerwalls 2.0s have useful lives of about 10 – 12 years*, and GMP likely would return them to Tesla for “processing”. 

*Some people claim 15 years, but the jury is still out on that.

 

GMP plans to deploy 2000 Powerwall 2.0s. GMP had deployed 100 at end 2017, 220 at end march 2018.

The company expects to install the remaining ~90% of by the end of 2018.

Per agreement, homeowners would lease the units from GMP, which “harvests” all the various subsidies.

Homeowners would pay “$15 a month for 10 years, or a $1,500 one-time fee”, which is significantly less than the installed cost of at least $7,000 - $8000.

GMP would have the right to remotely discharge the unit one time per day for 10 years (usually during peak demand hours, about 5 to 8 pm).

GMP would be able to access the unit for damping/regulation purposes (on a distribution grid) and to reduce its ISO-NE charges for regional network services, RNS, and forward capacity market, FCM, which are based on monthly peak demand and yearly peak demand, respectively.

Demand reduction in 2019 (all units installed at a cost of about $15 million) would be about 2000 x 5 kW/unit = 10 MW.

GMP savings on RNS and FCM charges would be at least $2 million/y in 2019. 

Midday wholesale rates are about 6 c/kWh; late afternoon/early evening wholesale rates are about 7 - 8 c/kWh.

In case of a power outage, a homeowner would have up to about 24 hours of standby power, provided GMP had not earlier discharged the unit for its own purposes.

 

https://electrek.co/2018/04/06/tesla-powerwall-delivered-massive-ba...

https://www.energysage.com/solar/solar-energy-storage/tesla-powerwa...

http://provisionsolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Powerwall-2_AC...

APPENDIX 4

Future Heat Pumps and Plug-in Hybrids and Plug-in All Electric Vehicles: Various NE studies foresee widespread adoption of heat pumps for building heating and cooling, and adoption of plug-ins for transportation in future years, likely about the same time NE would be shutting down all those nuclear and fossil plants. Those studies project at least a 50% increase in NE electricity consumption, despite projections of very significantly increased energy efficiency.

 

At present, almost all housing and other buildings should be considered energy-hog level, compared to what they would need to be in the future. Those buildings would need very extensive upgrades in efficiency to enable heat pumps to be useful on colder days in winter. During the recent NE cold spell, heat pumps proved not sufficient to heat many buildings.

 

Some people think NE should emulate California. However, NE weather and driving conditions are much different from California, which had on its roads about 47% of all US plug-ins in 2017, a unique condition. As a result of the different conditions, plug-in hybrids were 78% of all plug-ins in Vermont in 2017; people prefer plug-in hybrids to have adequate, reliable power and range during winter conditions. That likely would be the case in the rest of NE. See URLs.

 

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

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

APPENDIX 5

“Common Storage” Batteries: Some people envision all plug-ins would be tied together and become one big “common storage” battery to:

1) Perform the filling-in, peaking and balancing of the variable, intermittent wind and solar electricity 24/7/365, and to

2) Supply nearly all electricity during wind and solar lulls, which are frequent occurrences throughout the year, especially during winter, when solar is at a seasonal minimum and panels are covered with snow and ice.

 

However, the plentiful plug-in hybrids would have small batteries, and thus would be of minimal use (at most 10 kWh delivered as AC/hybrid) for the envisioned “common storage” functions. The potential “common storage” of the much smaller number of plug-in all electrics likely would not be sufficient to make much of a difference. People would object not having enough range to make the round-trip to work, etc.

 

The upshot is:

 

1) NE electricity consumption would increase at least 50% by 2050, and

2) Additional electricity generation would be needed to offset the 20% loss factor for any electricity passing through storage, and

3) The NE electrical system (generation, distribution and storage) would need to be completely redesigned and rebuilt to accommodate those changes, and

4) Above capacity and capital numbers, based on present consumption, would be at least 50% to 60% greater.

 

APPENDIX 6

H-Q Building New Plants, Upgrading Others: Below items 1 through 4 would enable H-Q to have at least 5000 MW x 8766 x 0.60 = 26,298,000 MWh/y, or 26.3 TWh, for export via new power lines that are being proposed, in addition to existing exports. If that electricity were not there, would various private entities propose HVDC power lines worth billions of dollars?

 

1) Hydro-Québec Production obtained the necessary approvals to build a 1,550-MW hydroelectric complex on the Rivière Romaine, north of the municipality of Havre-Saint-Pierre on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. The complex will consist of four hydro plants, Romaine 1, 2, 3 and 4, with total average output of 8.0 TWh/y; CF 0.60.

 

2) Other power plants up north are being refurbished (better water flow) and being upgraded with more efficient turbines, i.e., will produce more electricity.

 

3) Existing plants not being fully utilized (water over the spillways instead of through the turbines, especially in summer).

 

4) H-Q to build future hydro plants and wind systems.

 

H-Q Electricity Exports: "H-Q electricity is very clean, has very low CO2/kWh, is not variable/not intermittent, is 99% renewable, costs only 5 - 7 c/kWh, per recent GMP 20-y contract, and requires no subsidies."

 

The 5 - 7 c/kWh contract price appears entirely reasonable, considering, in 2016, HQ was exporting at an annual average of 4.8 c/kWh (a mix of old and new contracts).

 

HQ export revenue in 2016; $1.568 billion

HQ electricity exports to New York, New England, etc., in 2016; 32.6 TWh (about 20.8 TWh to NE)

Annual average electricity sales price; 4.8 c/kWh

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”.

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

 

APPENDIX 7

Electricity Supply to New England via External Ties: Quebec, New Brunswick and New York supply about 20.8 million MWh/y of electricity to the NE grid. See table 1B.

 

With additional HVDC transmission lines, the above 4 items would enable external tie supply of about 2 x 20.8 = 41.6 million MWh/y by 2050.

 

Hydro-Quebec hydro, unwisely rejected by GMP, et al., and Vermont Yankee nuclear, unwisely harassed to close down by the state of Vermont for years, would have provided clean, near-CO2-free, low-cost (5-6 c/kWh), not variable/not intermittent, electricity, 24/7/365, year after year, FOR ALMOST ALL OF VERMONT, sun or no sun, wind or no wind.

 

The H-Q approach would require minimal investments for transmission, and no subsidies, no ruined ridge lines, and would not further ruin the anemic, near-zero, real-growth Vermont Economy with high-cost electricity.

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/more-energy-from-hydro-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-very-expensive-offsho...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

 

APPENDIX 8

H-Q Reservoir Hydro Storage and NE Pumped Hydro Storage: In Quebec, the H-Q reservoirs receive water from the watershed area surrounding each reservoir. Water is withdrawn from the reservoirs, as needed, to generate almost all of the electricity to satisfy the demand of the entire Province of Quebec, 24/7/365, plus to provide about 33 TWh/y for export.

- H-Q has about 37,000 MW of hydro plants.

- The active water storage of the reservoir plants is about 1/3 of total storage.

- The active storage is equivalent to about 176 TWh/y, about equal to Quebec’s annual electricity requirements.

 

APPENDIX 9

Wind and solar electricity could be used to heat stones in tanks to 600 C. The heat would be used by steam turbines to generate electricity on a continuous basis. Such systems would be located near each utility-scale wind and solar system to balance their outputs before feeding into the grid.

http://www.rechargenews.com/transition/1450958/wind-and-solar-can-b...

 

APPENDIX 10

Ammonia is produced through the century-old Haber-Bosch process, in which nitrogen and hydrogen gas are passed over catalyst beds at high temperatures under high pressure. Hydrogen has traditionally been produced by steam reforming of natural gas, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, but is currently a far cheaper process than electrolysis. The excess wind and solar electricity would be used as energy for the process.

http://www.rechargenews.com/transition/1456045/stiesdals-solution-t...

 

APPENDIX 11

CO2eq Emissions From Various Electricity Generating Plants: A comparison of CO2eq emissions/kWh for various generating plants is shown in the table. Hydro is the gold standard for renewable energy.

 

PV solar panels require much energy to extract and refine the materials and to manufacture the panels, all of which produces CO2eq, especially in China, which mostly has inefficient, highly polluting, coal-fired generating plants. China has at least 50% of the world’s solar panel market.

 

The CO2eq from a new hydro reservoir rapidly decreases by a factor of 5 during the first 4 years of operation and then remains steady for the at least 100-y life of the reservoir, as measured at various hydro reservoirs in Quebec. See first URL.

 

http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/ghg-emiss...

https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php

http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/international/pdf/2015-11-19_briefi...

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

http://www.cleanairalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/quebec-d...

http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/pdf/carte-grands-equipements.pdf

 

Plant type	Generation	CO2eq	Times the base
		g/kWh
Hydro, run of river	Continuous	6	Base
Nuclear	Continuous	8	1.3
Wind	Variable, intermittent	14	2.3
Hydro, reservoir	Continuous	17	2.8
PV solar	Variable, intermittent	64	10.7
Gas	Continuous	620	103.3
Coal	Continuous	879	146.5

 

APPENDIX 12

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality 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: In New England,

- 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)

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

- 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 region in the US, except the US South. See URL.

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

 

Solar: In New England,

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year

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

- It is minimal much of the winter

- It is near zero with snow and ice on 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. See Note.

- 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.

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (GWh-scale in case of Vermont) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URL.

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