DAILY SHIFTING OF WIND AND SOLAR USING BATTERY SYSTEMS IN SUMMER

RE proponents claim New England’s nuclear, gas, oil and coal plants could be shut down, because the following would provide electricity service, 24/7/365, at a minimum reliability of 99.97%:

 

1) Wind and solar

2) Hydro + bio (mostly wood) + refuse + landfill methane

3) Energy storage (mostly batteries)

4) Supply management (including curtailments) and demand management (may include forms of rationing)

5) Energy efficiency

6) Utilizing the batteries of electric vehicles for smoothing the variability of wind and solar.

Their envisioned 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”. See URLs.

 

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...

 

Shutting Down Nuclear, Gas, Oil and Coal Plants: That sounds alluring, but would entail huge build-outs of wind and solar, plus a very large capacity of battery storage, at a turnkey capital cost of at least $500 billion (not counting any subsidies, financing costs, decommissioning costs of existing plants, etc.) over a period of at least 20 to 30 years.

 

Per ISO-NE, in 2017, NE total electricity generation was 102532 GWh (84.7% of the system load, 15.3% was imported from NY and Canada).

NE electricity generation by coal, oil, gas and nuclear was 83116 GWh.

RE proponents want to shut down coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants and replace their electricity with wind and solar. See table.

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

 

Direct Equivalent Method	Factor	PE	To Grid	NE generation
Table 2/NE Grid/2017				% of system load
		GWh	GWh	GWh
Coal	0.3245	5190	1684
Oil	0.3427	2031	696
Gas	0.4603	106882	49198
Total fossil	0.4520	114103	51578
Nuclear	1.0000	31538	31538
Hydro	1.0000	8572	8572
Geo	1.0000	0	0
Solar	1.0000	880	880
Wind	1.0000	3280	3280
Muni Refuse	0.1770	17881	3165
Biomass, solid	0.2860	10538	3014
Biogas & bio-liquids	0.2620	1874	491
Steam	1.0000	0	0
Total RE	0.3143	34454	10830
Other	1.0000	14	14
Total Generation	0.5434	188681	102532	84.7
Net Flow over External Ties	1.0000	20243	20243
Québec	1.0000	14401	14401
New Brunswick	1.0000	4306	4306
New York	1.0000	1536	1536
Pumping Load	1.0000	-1716	-1716
Net Energy for Load	0.5842	207208	121059

 

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

 

Closing down existing nuclear, gas, oil and coal plants would create such a huge shortage of electricity, at least 7000 MW, the NE grid would not have been able to provide electricity service, 24/7/365, at a minimum reliability of 99.97% during at least 5 out of 6 consecutive SUMMER days with overcast skies, rain showers and little wind in June 2018, even after the following measures were implemented:

 

- Increase existing NE wind turbines from 1279 MW (end 2017) by 15.7 times to 20080 MW

- Increase existing NE solar from 2390 MW (end 2017; before the meter, such as rooftop solar, 1500 MW; plus after the meter, such as large-scale, field-mounted, 890 MW) by 15.7 times to 37523 MW

- Install batteries with a capacity of 780,000 MWh (delivered as AC to the high voltage grid)

 

ANALYSIS

 

ISO-NE Real-Time Grid Operating Data: Fortunately, ISO-NE, the New England grid operator, 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 NE electricity producers connected to the high voltage grid. The real-time load, MW, on the NE grid system is also shown. The second URL shows daily generation percent by source.

 

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

2018_daygenbyfuel_SUMMARIZED.xlsx

 

NOTE: It is best to download the daily data just before midnight to capture almost all of the data for that day. If one waits until after midnight, a new list of data appears, and the prior list is not visible on the URL. The data likely is somewhere else, but I have not been able to find it.

DAY 1

A Day With Cloudy Weather, Some Rain Showers and Little Wind

 

The data downloaded for 23 June 2018 covered a day with cloudy weather, with some rain showers, and little wind. Because RE proponents want to shut down nuclear, gas, oil and coal plants, I deleted their outputs. See note.

 

This caused a big shortfall (7098 MW) between demand and production at about 1 AM. However, if wind had been increased by a factor of 15.7, the shortfall would become zero. Wind produced more than was needed by demand until about 6 AM. The surplus was stored into new battery systems.

 

Increasing demand and decreasing wind caused a shortfall of 1395 MW at 7 AM; solar was barely present. Solar started about 6 AM, reached a maximum at 11 AM and disappeared at 8 PM. Even if solar had been increased by a factor of 15.7, the shortfall would be reduced from 1395 MW to 1268 MW. Shortfalls continued for the rest of the day, accumulating to 62,610 MWh. See table 2. This was a battery-discharging day.

 

NOTE: Nuclear, gas and coal produce at less than 5 c/kWh and closing them down would eliminate competition for wind which produces at 9.5 c/kWh (ridgeline) and solar which produces at 13 c/kWh (field-mounted), 18 c/kWh (rooftop). This would not be a good outcome for the NE economy, which is handicapped by the highest energy costs in the US.

 

NOTE: Because 23 June had been such a disappointment regarding wind and solar production, I decided to monitor the ISO-NE website for the next five days. All but one of these days turned out to be a battery-discharge day! A very large capacity battery would be required to provide enough electricity to serve New England demand.

 

DAY 2

24 June 2018 also had cloudy weather and little wind. There was a shortfall of about 7682 MW (solar was zero) during the first hour of that day. The 500,000 - 62,610 = 437,390 MWh available from the batteries (after the first day) would be reduced by about 80,000 MWh to 357,390 MWh by 10 AM the next day (25 June) when solar would start to become significant. This was another battery-discharging day.

 

DAY 3

25 June 2018 had plenty of sunshine and wind, which means the increased wind and solar capacity likely produced enough electricity to serve most of the demand, plus partially recharge the batteries. Curtailment of wind and solar would be required, if batteries were full. This likely was a battery-charging day.

 

DAY 4

26 June 2018 started with little wind throughout the night, but had plenty of sunshine. At noontime, production, per ISO-NE = 1090 MW from NE hydro, wood, refuse, landfill methane + 272 x 15.7 MW, wind + (92 x 15.7, ATM + 1500/890 x 92 x 15.7, BTM) + 2324, imports = 11563 MW. Demand was about 13,500 MW, which means batteries would be discharging. This was another battery-discharging day.

ATM means after the meter, such as large, field-mounted solar (“seen” by ISO-NE)

BTM means before the meter, such as rooftop solar (not “seen” by ISO-NE)

 

DAY 5

27 June 2018 started with little wind throughout the night, but had partial sun and little wind in the morning, and clouded up later. In late afternoon rain showers began which lasted to about 10 AM the next day (June 28). This was another battery-discharging day.

 

DAY 6

28 June 2018 started with little wind and rain showers throughout the night, with overcast conditions and little wind during the rest of the day. This was another battery-discharging day.

 

Other Measures

 

It is clear increasing wind and solar by 15.7 times would not be adequate during summer.

 

- Increased generation, totaling about 6000 MW, of non-weather dependent electricity sources, such as hydro, refuse and landfill methane, plus increased imports would be needed to partially offset the 7098 MW gap.

 

- Demand management to shift demand from on-peak hours (late afternoon/early evening) to off-peak hours also would be required.

 

NOTE: Heat pumps and electric vehicles would significantly increase the need for electricity.

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

 

NOTE: Increased wood burning in power plants would not be a good idea, as it wastes a lot of energy. See next section.

 

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 40 years for the CO2 to be reabsorbed by new tree growth; it is about 20 to 25 years in planted and fertilized forests in Georgia.

 

That means, if a wood burning plant operates for 40 years and is then shutdown, it would take another 40 years before all its combustion CO2 is absorbed.

 

There is an additional CO2 of about 15% to 20%, on a forest-to-electric meter basis, such as due to logging and power plant operations, disturbance of the forests, various losses, etc.

 

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" is 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...;

 

Wind and Solar Production Varies During a Day

 

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 only about 80% of the battery capacity is 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.

- The EV electricity consumption would increase on the charge side (more kWh/mile for charging), and the energy delivery would decrease on the discharge side (less kWh/mile to wheels).

- Its capacity to store electricity, kWh, will decrease by about 10% in year 10, by about 13% in year 15, i.e., its capacity is greater in year 1 than in subsequent years. The materials in the battery age and cannot take as much charge as when new. That would reduce the range of EVs. See charge and discharge loss factors in table 1.

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

 

When new, "Excess to Batteries" = 0.873 x “excess over demand”, whether due to wind or solar, or both. See tables 1 and 2 and spreadsheet. 

 

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

 

Table 1/Age	New	10y	15y
Charge side loss
HV to LV, 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
LV to HV	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

Conclusion

 

Summer: In case of multi-day cloudy weather and little wind, it is clear the active battery system capacity would need to be at least 500,000 MWh for filling-in and peaking, plus 20% for balancing, plus 13% for degradation by year 15. The wind and solar multipliers (15.7 times) may need to be increased to ensure electric service would be provided, 24/7/365, at a minimum reliability of 99.97%.

 

Winter: In case of multi-day cloudy weather and 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 longer multi-day wind and solar lulls in winter; there could be two such lulls only a few days apart. See URLs.

 

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

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

 

The Spreadsheets

 

- I had to split up the spreadsheet, because it would not fit on the width of a page. The bold values are mentioned in the text.

- The first table shows the shortfall after closing coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants and NOT increasing wind and solar.

- The second table shows the shortfall WITH increasing wind and solar by 15.7 times.

- Generation from about 890 MW of PV solar at end 2017, after the meter

- Generation from about 1500 MW of PV solar at end 2017, before the meter, such as residential rooftop solar

- Generation from about 1279 MW of wind turbines at end 2017. See Note.

- Other generation is NE hydro, wood, refuse, and landfill methane

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

- Shortfall = Demand - (Total 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 grid.

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

 

June 23, 2018: Cloudy day, rain showers, not much wind
Hour	Solar, ATM	Solar, BTM	Wind	Other	Imports	Total	Demand	Shortfall
	MW	MW	MW	MW	MW	MW	MW	MW
1	0	0	451	1027	2324	3802	10900	7098
2	0	0	445	1010	2324	3779	10270	6491
3	0	0	465	1024	2324	3813	9890	6077
4	0	0	431	1021	2324	3776	9750	5974
5	0	0	408	1036	2324	3768	9730	5962
6	1	2	393	1021	2324	3741	9820	6079
7	3	5	325	1043	2324	3700	10210	6510
8	16	27	248	1062	2324	3677	10950	7273
9	17	29	210	1203	2324	3783	11790	8007
10	22	37	242	1331	2324	3956	12350	8394
11	32	54	269	1372	2324	4051	12680	8629
12	24	40	262	1115	2324	3765	12950	9185
13	25	42	387	1101	2324	3879	12970	9091
14	28	47	283	1087	2324	3769	13010	9241
15	18	30	300	1145	2324	3817	13010	9193
16	16	27	314	1142	2324	3823	13000	9177
17	10	17	252	1220	2324	3823	13120	9297
18	6	10	221	1232	2324	3793	13350	9557
19	2	3	193	1108	2324	3630	13310	9680
20	1	2	183	1440	2324	3950	13250	9300
21	0	0	174	1269	2324	3767	13160	9393
22	0	0	164	1043	2324	3531	12920	9389
23	0	0	165	1050	2324	3539	12130	8591
24	0	0	164	1050	2324	3538	11220	7682

 

Table 2 shows wind increased 15.7 times and solar 15.7 times, and the hour-to-hour storing of electricity into the batteries. “Existing Tot. Solar” = “Solar, ATM” + “Solar, BTM”.

 

The batteries are charging by excess wind until 6 AM. But the increasing solar is not sufficient to offset increasing demand and the decreasing wind. As a result, the charge decrease was 62610 MWh by midnight.

 

Table 2	Increased	Wind surplus (+)	Existing		Increased	Solar surplus (+)	Excess to	Accum'd
Wind times	Wind	Wind shortfall (-)	Tot Solar	Solar times	Tot. Solar	Solar shortfall (-)	Batteries	Into storage
	MW	MW	MW		MW	MW	As AC	As AC
15.7	7098	0	0	15.7	0		0
15.7	7004	513	0	15.7	0		451	451
15.7	7318	1241	0	15.7	0		1092	1543
15.7	6783	809	0	15.7	0		712	2256
15.7	6421	459	0	15.7	0		404	2660
15.7	6185	106	3	15.7	42		130	2790
15.7	5115	-1395	8	15.7	126	-1268	-1040	1750
15.7	3903	-3370	43	15.7	675	-2695	-2210	-460
15.7	3305	-4702	46	15.7	717	-3986	-3268	-3729
15.7	3809	-4585	59	15.7	928	-3658	-2999	-6728
15.7	4234	-4395	86	15.7	1349	-3046	-2498	-9226
15.7	4123	-5061	64	15.7	1012	-4049	-3320	-12546
15.7	6091	-3000	67	15.7	1054	-1946	-1596	-14142
15.7	4454	-4787	75	15.7	1180	-3606	-2957	-17099
15.7	4722	-4471	48	15.7	759	-3712	-3044	-20143
15.7	4942	-4235	43	15.7	675	-3561	-2920	-23063
15.7	3966	-5331	27	15.7	422	-4909	-4026	-27089
15.7	3478	-6079	16	15.7	253	-5826	-4777	-31866
15.7	3038	-6642	5	15.7	84	-6558	-5377	-37243
15.7	2880	-6420	3	15.7	42	-6378	-5230	-42473
15.7	2738	-6655	0	15.7	0	-6655	-5457	-47930
15.7	2581	-6808	0	15.7	0	-6808	-5582	-53512
15.7	2597	-5994	0	15.7	0	-5994	-4915	-58428
15.7	2581	-5101	0	15.7	0	-5101	-4183	-62610

 

Installed Turnkey Capital Cost

An estimate of the capital cost is shown in table 3. The assumed $400/kWh is the price of the largest battery in the world, provided by Tesla, and located in Hornsdale, Australia.

 

NOTE: The actual turnkey cost was $US 66 million, which for 129 MWh of storage works out to $512/kWh.

- The 1.3 factor covers capacity loss due to battery aging by year 15

- The 1.2 factor covers real-time balancing of wind and solar.

- The 1.15 factor covers grid augmentation and extensions.

 

NOTE: The battery capacity shown in the table is the minimum needed. In the real world, a much larger battery capacity to store any surplus of wind and solar electricity would be required, because periods of cloudy weather, rain showers and little wind may last for more than a few days. 

 

Table 3		$billion	Service live
Batteries	1.3 x 1.2 x 500000 x 1000 x 400	312	10 to 15 years
Wind addition	1279 x (15.7-1) x 1.15 x 2800000	54	20 to 25 years
Solar addition	(2390) x (15.7-1) x 1.15 x 3500000	141	25 to 30 years
Total		507

 

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 finallybeginning 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, 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 euanmearns URL with a graph of household electric rates versus the sum of installed wind and solar 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

New England Wholesale Prices: The annual average wholesale price has been about 5 c/kWh since 2009, due to low-cost nuclear, hydro and gas.

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 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 3

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:

- 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 in summer and winter, 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 in summer and in winter, 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 their 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 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.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the 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 (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. 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 4

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 the US electricity mix to over 30% in 2017

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

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

 

APPENDIX 5

New England Wholesale Electricity Prices: New England wholesale prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh for steady, 24/7/365 electricity since about 2008, primarily due to:

 

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

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

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

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

 

APPENDIX 6

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 claims 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 at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

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

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 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 8 or 10 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 minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are 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...