HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND

Any transition from fossil fuels to low-CO2 sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and biomass, could occur, only if the low-CO2 sources are: 1) abundantly available everywhere, and 2) low-cost, and 3) as reliable as fossil fuels.

 

This article presents the all-in cost of wind, solar and battery systems in New England

The all-in costs are much greater than reported by the Media, etc.

Much of the cost is shifted from Owners to taxpayers and ratepayers, and added to government debts.

 

CARRYING COST OF AN ENERGY SYSTEM

 

Simplified Mortgage Method: This method can be applied to Electric Vehicles, Heat Pumps, Electric Buses, Wind Systems, Solar Systems, Battery Systems, etc.

 

In case of a rental house

 

- The minimum annual cost of a house is paying the mortgage.

- All other costs, such as real estate taxes, insurance, heating/cooling/electricity, maintenance, etc., are in addition.

- Hidden costs, usually ignored, is the foregone interest of the Owner’s down payment, plus transaction costs, such as lawyer fees, transfer taxes, title transfer, etc.

- Owner’s profit

 

Annual rent, must equal “Paying the mortgage” + “All other costs” + “Hidden costs” + “Owner’s profit”

A shortage must be made up by increasing the rent.

 

In case of an energy system, the less an energy system is able to “pay for itself”, the more the subsidies.

 

Subsidies can be:

 

1) Reductions of up-front turnkey capital costs,

2) Reductions of “All other costs” and “Hidden costs”,

3) Owners’ profit is established by receiving in excess of market prices, c/kWh, for their electricity production, based on negotiations with governments behind closed doors

 

A house, after paying off the mortgage, likely is worth more than in Year 1.

However, wind, solar, and battery systems have useful service lives of about 20, 25, and 15 years, respectively.

 

Thereafter, the systems still perform at lesser outputs for some time, but, de facto, their financial value is near zero, i.e., no bank would loan money and no insurance company would insure

 

Complicated Spreadsheet Method: A more exact analysis would involve a spreadsheet with many rows and at least 25 columns (for solar), one for each year.

It would involve Present Values, Internal Rates of Return, Levelized Costs of Energy, etc. 

 

For large projects, such as power plants, such spreadsheets are best performed by investment bankers, with input from engineers.

The investment banker person would need an MBA in finance, to set up such spreadsheets, and would need inputs from a CPA on tax, subsidy and depreciation aspects.

 

The table shows only the northwest corner of a much larger spreadsheet, which has 112 rows and about 30 columns.

.

Solar Pricing Model
Operating Year			1	2	3	4	5	6
Calendar Year		2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Generation (MWh)			2,794	2,780	2,767	2,753	2,739	2,725
Revenue:
Standard Offer Price ($/MWh)
Fixed Price Component		100%	130.36	130.36	130.36	130.36	130.36	130.36
Escalating Price Component		0%	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Standard Offer Price			130.36	130.36	130.36	130.36	130.36	130.36
Revenues From Energy Production			364,288	362,466	360,654	358,851	357,057	355,271
RECs
Market Value of RECs ($/MWh)			0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Change Market Value of REC				2.00%	2.00%	2.00%	2.00%	2.00%
Revenues from RECs			0	0	0	0	0	0
Other Revenues			0	0	0	0	0	0
Interest Revenue			1,270	2,840	3,440	4,040	4,640	5,240
Total Revenue			365,558	365,307	364,094	362,891	361,697	360,512
Expenses:
O & M costs			25,528	25,988	26,455	26,931	27,416	27,910
Payroll			0	0	0	0	0	0
Payroll Overhead			0	0	0	0	0	0
Land Lease cost			14,960	15,229	15,503	15,782	16,067	16,356
FERC Charges			0	0	0	0	0	0
ISO-NE Charges			0	0	0	0	0	0
Other Operational Expenses			0	0	0	0	0	0
Insurance			16,280	16,573	16,871	17,175	17,484	17,799
Uniform Capacity Tax	$4.00		8,800	8,800	8,800	8,800	8,800	8,800
Municipal Tax
Underlying Land Tax	0.30%
Property tax	$/MWh	6	16,022	16,311	16,604	16,903	17,207	17,517
Total			81,590	82,900	84,234	85,592	86,974	88,382
EBITDA			283,968	282,406	279,860	277,299	274,723	272,130

.

All-in Wind System Owning and Operating Costs

 

1) Wind turbine foundations, wind turbines, cabling to connect all wind turbines to an offshore substation, about 30 miles of copper-intensive cabling from substation to shore   

 

2) Additional grid expansion/augmentation to ensure voltage and frequency remains within required parameters for stability

 

3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants, mostly CCGTs, to counteract the variable wind output, 24/7/365, year after year

 

4) Capacity payments to ensure an adequate capacity, MW, of quick-reacting plants stays in business to provide counteracting services. The more wind on the grid, the more capacity of counteracting plants that will operate:

 

- At a lesser annual efficiency, more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh (up/down output, 24/7/365; increased start stops; increased hot idling at synchronous speed, increased cold standby, increased wear and tear), and

- At lesser capacity factor, due to reduced annual production

Capacity payments are made in the UK, Germany, etc.

 

5) Federal and state subsidies, grants, and other financial subsidies, such as accelerated depreciation in 5 years, and deducting interest on borrowed funds. The total financial subsidies, plus selling electricity to utilities at above wholesale market prices, amounts to about 50% of a project’s owning and operating costs, i.e., the Owner would have to sell electricity at about 2x the cost/kWh, if no financial incentives and no above-wholesale-market-rate compensation.

 

6) Financing about 50% of the overall project cost at 6%/y for 20 years, with inflation at 5%/y

 

7)

Owner return on his investment was 9%/y compounded, when finance rates were 3%/y and inflation was 2.5%/y

Owner return on his investment needs to be about 12%/y, with financing at 6%/y and inflation at 5%/y

 

8) Owner will need to sell electricity to utilities at increasing costs, c/kWh, year after year, to maintain proper cashflows and rates of return

 

9) All other operating and maintenance costs, which, for offshore wind are about 3x onshore wind

 

PART 1; Cost Shifting

 

The owning and operating cost of wind, solar and battery systems, c/kWh, is reduced by about 45%, due to subsidies. However, because no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101, the subsidy costs are “socialized”, i.e., added onto:

 

1) Rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers

2) Taxpayers, by means of taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills and fuel bills

3) Government budgets

4) Government debt

 

If the subsidies had to be paid by Owners, the contract prices paid to Owners would need to be:

- At least 19.3 c/kWh, instead of 11 c/kWh, for large-scale solar

- At least 15.5 c/kWh, instead of 9 c/kWh, for ridge line wind. See table 1 and URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar 

 

Many solar systems on a distribution grid would excessively disturb the grid, especially at midday.

Battery systems are used counteract those output variations.

 

Wind and solar systems could not be connected to any grid without the counteracting services of the CCGT plants, i.e., shutting down CCGT plants, and artificially reducing/obstructing their gas supply, advocated by pro-RE folks, would not be an option for decades, if ever, because of the high costs of battery systems.

 

Costs not paid by wind/solar Owners:

 

- Extension/augmentation of electric grids to connect distributed wind and solar systems

- Services by other generators, mostly CCGT plants, to counteract the variable, intermittent outputs of wind and solar, 24/7/365

- Battery systems to stabilize distribution grids, due to variations of the solar and wind system outputs

 

The combined effect of cost shifting, determined behind closed doors, increases a project’s annual cash flow, i.e., “left-over-money”, to provide an ample profit for the Owner.

 

Owners are happy, having the “ears” of friendly politicians/bureaucrats, saving the world from climate change, and claiming: “See, my project is profitable and competitive”. Everyone else gets screwed.

 

1) Cash grants from various sources, such as the VT Clean Energy Development Fund

2) 26% federal investment tax credits, plus state FITs. Tax credits reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes Owners pay on profits

3) 100% depreciation over 5 years to quickly reduce Owner taxable income; the normal for utilities is 20 to 25 years.

4) Deductions of interest on borrowed money to reduce Owner taxable income.

5) Various O&M payments are often waved, such as sales tax, fees, property tax, school tax, municipal tax, etc.

6) Owners sell their output at two to four times NE wholesale rates

 

“ALL-IN” ELECTRICITY COST OF NE WIND AND SOLAR

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

 

Pro-RE folks always point to “price paid to Owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories.

The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

 

1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y

4) Grid extension/augmentation

5) Grid support services, such as: 1) capacity availability, i.e., plants fueled, staffed, kept in good working order, ready to produce on short notice, 2) more frequent plant start-up/shut-down

6) Future battery systems

 

Comments on table 1

   

- Vermont legacy SO solar systems had FITs up to 30 c/kWh, newer systems about 11 c/kWh; Wind FITs did not have the drastic reductions as solar FITs.

- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for administration costs, etc., of net-metered solar systems

- "Added to rate base" is the cost wind/solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.

- “Total cost”

- “NE utility cost” is average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh, a total of 7.6 c/kWh.

- “Grid support costs” is cost of counteracting CCGTs and battery systems

 

NOTES:

1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.

 

- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%

- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%

- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%

- The rest is hydro imports from the Canada and New York State

 

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

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

2) ISO-NE pro-rates Owning and Operating costs of the NE grid to utilities, at about 1.6 c/kWh. ISO-NE charges are for: 

 
Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand during a year.

Table 1/VT & NE sources	Paid to	Subsidy	Grid	GMP	Added	ISO-NE	Total	NE	Times
		paid to	support		to rate	RNS+		utility
	owner	towner	cost	adder	base	FCM	cost	cost
	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new	17.4	5.2	2.1	3.5	20.9	1.6	29.8	7.6	3.92
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy	18.2	5.4	2.1	3.5	21.7	1.6	30.8	7.6	4.05
Solar, standard offer, combo	11.0	6.74	2.1		11.0	1.6	21.44	7.6	2.82
Solar, standard offer, legacy	21.7	10.5	2.1		21.7	1.6	35.9	7.6	4.72
Wind, ridge line, new	8.5	3.9	2.4		8.5	1.6	16.4	7.6	2.15
Wind, offshore, new	9.0	4.1	2.4		9.0	1.6	17.1	7.6	2.25

 

NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh

Added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh

Total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh

 

Excludes costs for:

- very expensive battery systems

- very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

- dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

 

US regions with good wind and solar conditions, and low construction costs/kW, produce at low c/kWh.

NE has poor wind conditions, except on pristine ridge lines, and the poorest solar conditions in the US, except the rainy Seattle area.

NE has highest on-shore, ridgeline construction costs/kW ($2,400/kW in 2020), produces at high c/kWh

See page 39 of URL

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/Land-Based%20Win...

 

PART 2; Wind Systems

Wind/Solar Impacts on Electric Grids: High voltage and distribution grids, in Vermont and elsewhere, have been, and still are, entirely adequate to provide Vermonters with electricity, 24/7/365.

 

However, connecting wind and solar systems to the grids requires: 1) grid extensions, 2) grid reinforcements, to deal with their weather/season-dependent variability and intermittency, and 3) battery systems to deal with midday solar output surges. 

Wind and solar have a perverse tendency to produce when all of their outputs are not needed!!

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-in-new-england

 

Almost none of the extension/upgrade costs are charged to Owners, as otherwise wind/solar would become more expensive, which would “rain on the wind/solar parade”.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

 

Basic Rule Applicable to All Grids: Normal wind/solar output could be 10,000 MW. During a wind/solar lull, it could be 1,000 MW, such as at night. Such lulls may last 5 to 7 days, and may occur any time of the year. Sometimes a second multi-day lull occurs a few days after the first one.

 

At least 9,000 MW of reliable power plants would be needed to counteract any wind/solar shortfalls. 

These plants would have to supply enough electricity, not supplied by wind and solar, to meet demand, 24/7/365

 

Wind Output Curtailment: Owners are required to curtail their outputs to a capacity factor of, say 60%, even if wind speeds were high enough to have a CF of 100%

The purpose of curtailment is to reduce: 1) the counteracting burden on CCGT plants, 2) grid disturbances. 

A lesser capacity, MW, of CCGT plants would be required, if wind is curtailed by feathering the blades. 

The Owners of the wind systems get paid for not producing what they could have produced. 

In Scotland, such offset payments are several hundred million dollars per year

Offshore Wind Systems

The below image shows an output simulation, MW vs calendar time, based on actual, high-wind-speed, weather data, if 1,600 MW of offshore wind turbines would be located south of Martha’s Vineyard Island, MVI.

 

BTW, the wind turbines would be about 850 ft tall, with highly visible flashing strobe lights, even at 30 miles south of MVI.

 

The almost 1,600 MW downward spikes of output, in a few hours, are far from trivial. They would create major havoc, if fed into the existing Cape Cod grid. ISO-NE has made studies of the impacts on existing grids, and costs of grid upgrades/extensions to deal with these large up/down fluctuations of output.

 

The flat lines at the top of the image are due to the automatic limiting of the wind turbine output by feathering the rotor blades, to avoid high-speed winds destroying the wind turbines.

 

As shown, all of a sudden, the wind dies, and wind output spikes down from almost 1,600 MW to near zero, then, the wind suddenly reappears, and wind output spikes up from near zero to almost 1,600 MW.

 

During weather with high wind speeds, wind output is extremely variable, as proven by the image! 
ISO-NE has to make sure such extremes would be manageable under various scenarios, i.e., no surprises!

 

Existing CCGT plants, several thousand MW, would have to be in good operating condition, staffed and fueled, i.e., ready and able, to rapidly adjust outputs to counteract such extreme spikes.

 

This article will calculate the capacity of CCGT plants required to counteract these fluctuations.

As a last resort, ISO-NE could order output curtailment to reduce grid impacts.

Counteracting NE Wind and Solar Output Variations

1) CCGT Plants: CCGT are up to 60%-efficient, quick-reacting power plants, ideal for counteracting wind/solar output variations.

The stable operating range of CCGT plants is from about 50% to 100% of rated output.

As counteracting plants, they typically operate at 75% to be able to ramp up and down about 25%

Existing CCGT plants could perform the counteracting tasks 24/7/365, for 35 to 40 years. All they need is natural gas or fuel oil.

 

CCGT plants, with a capacity of 6,400 MW, would be required to ramp down from 75% to 50%, to counteract a 1,600 MW up-spike, and then ramp up from 50% to 75%, to counteract a 1,600 MW down-spike. See table 2

 

2) Canadian Hydro Plants: Existing Canadian hydro plants could also perform that service, but that would require greatly enhanced grid extensions in Canada and NE, similar to the inter-connections of the grids of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway.

 

That approach would be the least costly, plus large quantities of hydro could be purchased at about 6 to 7 c/kWh, far less costly than from onshore/offshore wind. See table 2

  

3) Battery Systems: In each case the entire up spike or down spike is processed by the battery

 

If 1600 MW down-spike over a 3-h period; energy from battery is area of a triangle

Required battery system capacity 2500 MW/7500 MWh DC; in battery 3750 MWh DC, if 50% charged

Down-spike energy = height/2 x base = 1600 MW/2 x 3 h = 2400 MWh AC

Discharged from battery = 2400 MW/0.9, discharge loss = 2667 MWh DC; 10% discharge loss

Remaining charge in battery = 3750 - 2667 = 1083 MWh, DC, or 14.4% charged.

 

If 1600 MW up-spike over a 3-h period; energy to battery is area of a triangle

Up-spike energy = height/2 x base = 1600/2 MW x 3 h = 2400 MWh AC

Charge into battery = 1600/2 MW x 3 h x 0.9, charge loss = 2160 MWh DC; 10% charge loss

Charge in battery = 1083, initial + 2160, added = 3243 MWh DC, or 43.2% charged. 

The battery would need 563 MWh AC from the grid to add 507 MWh DC, to restore battery to 3750 MWh DC. 

See table 2 and Note, and Appendix for battery system losses.

 

NOTE: If another 1600 MW up/down spike would occur shortly thereafter, the batteries would be unable to entirely counteract them, etc. Recharging the batteries immediately after each up/down spike is very important, to ensure full counteracting capability. If that is not achieved, additional battery capacity would be required.

 

NOTE: ISO-NE, likely would implement wind output curtailments, during high wind speed periods, to reduce stress on the CCGT plants. Curtailments would be more frequent, and of longer duration, if wind systems were added.

 

Battery System Turnkey Capital Cost

 

The battery would be operated from 20% charge to 80% charge, to achieve a 15-y life.

The battery power capacity would be 1600 MW/0.6 = 2667 MW.

The battery energy delivery capacity would be 7500 MWh DC x 0.9 = 6750 MWh AC. See table 2.

The turnkey capital cost of the battery system would be 6750 MWh AC x 1000 kWh/MWh x $600/kWh = $4.05 billion. 

Useful service life about 15 years, much less than the 40 years of CCGT plants. 

 

Transmission Systems

 

Major high voltage transmission system upgrades in southeastern NE would be needed to distribute the output of the MVI and other offshore wind systems.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/07/a2_b_brattle_group_presentation.pdf 

Table 2/Counteracting spikes
CCGT capacity, MW	6400	6400	6400
Operating fraction	1.0	0.75	0.5
CCGT average output, MW	6400	4800	3200
Up/down range, MW		1600
Down-spike			Up-spike
Battery capacity, MWh, AC	6750		Remaining charge, MWh, DC	1083	14.4
Efficiency	0.9		Up-spike, MW	1600
Battery capacity, MWh, DC	7500	100.0	Duration, h	3
Charge fraction	0.5		Surplus, MWh, AC	2400
Available charge, MWh, DC	3750	50.0	Efficiency	0.9
Down-spike, MW	1600		Added charge, MWh, DC	2160	28.8
Duration, h	3		Total charge, MWh, DC	3243	43.2
Shortage, MWh, AC	2400		From grid, MWh, AC	563
Efficiency	0.9		Efficiency	0.9
From battery, MWh, DC	2667	35.6	Added charge, MWh, DC	507	6.8
Remaining charge, MWh, DC	1083	14.4	Total charge, MWh, DC	3750	50.0

PART 3: Solar Systems

Solar systems require large areas of land. It takes about 8 acres for each MW of panels, which produces about 1.25 million kWh/y. Electricity loaded onto Vermont grids is about 6,000 million kWh/y, of which about 5,600 million kWh/y arrives at user meters; Vermont in-state solar was about 8% of the mix at end 2020.

 

Solar production starts to become significant around mid-morning, peaks around midday, and goes to near-zero by late-afternoon, just about the time of the late-afternoon/early-evening peak electricity demand period. Solar stays asleep until about mid-morning the next day.

 

Solar is like a poorly performing, part-time “worker “, who needs to be highly subsidized, and supported, to be present and function on the grid.

 

The Owners of other generators are forced to expensively reduce and increase their outputs to accommodate the daily solar bulges, which are smaller during winter and overcast days, and larger during summer, during sunny days.

 

The Owners are not compensated for their increased wear and tear, lesser operating efficiencies, and revenue losses.

Those costs are shifted, in one way or another, to the rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers

Those costs would not be charged to Owners of solar systems, because that would “rain on the solar parade”.

 

Comments on Image

 

The image is of solar electricity production, during variable cloudiness, at various US Postal System area codes, in California.

Southern California has much greater DUCK-curves than northern California.

 

The graph is deceptive; 0 should be 6 AM, 20 should be 8 PM.

Solar output is near-zero from 7 PM to 7 AM the next day, because solar is peacefully sleeping.

The graph peaks at 12 AM.

 

The down spikes are due to clouds passing over the solar systems, which become increasingly harder to deal with, the more rooftop and other solar systems are installed on distribution grids. Fast-reacting batteries, such as Tesla Powerwalls, etc., serve to supply electricity to offset the down spikes. Southern Germany and Southern California, with large capacities of solar systems, have had to deal with those down spikes for at least 20 years.

Rutland “The Solar City of New England”

 

A few years ago, Rutland was declared to become “The Solar City of New England”. Substations between distribution and high voltage grids would have to be two-way, i.e., draw from and feed into the high voltage grid, instead of the normal one-way substations.

 

This fantasy came to a screeching halt, when RE folks were informed the daily solar surges would excessively disturb the distribution grids, and that these disturbances would spill over onto high voltage grids, which would have made ISO-NE very unhappy. Some RE folks said we should use battery systems, but that turned out to be off-the-charts expensive.

 

Solar Systems Combine with Battery Systems 

 

RE folks propose expensive battery systems that would absorb a part of the midday solar electricity surge, and would discharge that electricity, minus losses, during late-afternoon/early-evening hours, when peak electricity demands occur.

 

Charging and Discharging Losses: DC electricity from the solar system, passing through the battery system, then via a step-up transformer, to the distribution grid, has an A-to-Z loss of about 17%

 

The battery system could also be charged from the grid, in case of cloudy/foggy weather. AC electricity from the grid, via a step-down transformer, then passing through the battery system, then via a step-up transformer, to the distribution grid, has a loss of at least 20%

 

Cost Adder of Using a Battery: The cost of passing expensively subsidized solar electricity through the battery is about 63 c/kWh, in addition to the solar costs in table 2. The costsinclude:

 

1) Amortizing the financed part of the project turnkey capital cost, i.e., “paying the mortgage”

2) Owner’s return-on-investment regarding the not-financed part of project turnkey capital cost,

3) Federal, and state subsidies; any annual or one-time local incentives; and any one-time cash grants,

4) Annual costs of operating and maintenance of the battery system

 

Hidden Subsidies: Hidden subsidies are paid by remote entities, such as 1) federal and state governments, and 2) requiring utilities to pay Owners at rates in excess of wholesale rates. Those higher costs are added to the utility rate base, which is used to set electric rates.

All of them are a cost of having solar. Regarding item 3, those subsidies would include:

 

- Depreciating almost all of the turnkey capital cost in the first 5 years of the 15-y project, which provides huge tax benefits to Owner, i.e., a “tax shelter”

- Subtracting any interest on loans from Owner’s taxable income

 

Green Mountain Power, GMP, Owning/Operating Micro-grids all over Vermont

 

It looks like spreading micro-grids with batteries all over Vermont would be very lucrative for GMP, but very expensive for Vermont taxpayers and ratepayers.

 

Battery Cost Impact on Heat Pumps and EVs

 

It would be counterproductive to add battery costs/kWh to the rate base, because it would increase electric rates and discourage people from owning heat pumps and electric vehicles, i.e., the Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, goals would become unaffordable/unattainable. See Appendix

 

Reducing Midday Solar Electricity Surges

 

One of the main functions of battery systems tied to distribution grids is to reduce midday solar electricity surges. The cost of that service is not charged to Owners of solar systems, because that would “rain on the solar parade”.

 

NOTE: It looks like the decades-old-rule "the disturber pays" went out of the window, when wind and solar showed up to save the world.

GMP-OWNED SOLAR/BATTERY COMBO IN PANTON, VERMONT

GMP has built a solar/battery combo, on 35 acres of fertile farmland, in Panton, Vermont, a rural area. The $17.7 million solar/battery combo, would provide power, for a few hours, during rare power outages; at first to about 50 users, such as Town Hall, police, fire, EMS, etc., later to additional users. See URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/re_on_...

 

Turnkey Capital Cost

Solar system about 4.9 MW x $3.0 million/MW = $14.7 million

Battery system about 4000 kWh x $750kWh = $3.0 million.

 

Power Outage

A power outage can be due to a production failure (extremely rare), or an electric grid failure (more common, due to lines on poles etc., instead of buried)

 

The battery annual average working capacity would be from 20% full to 85% full, or 65% of rated capacity, to ensure 15-y life.

The working capacity, only during power outages, would be increased to 75% of rated capacity, to ensure 15-y life.

The battery system, 1 MW/4 MWh, could deliver a maximum of 2,800 kWh for 1 hour, or 700 kWh for 4 hours, from 85% full to 10% full.

https://microgridknowledge.com/gmp-panton-microgrid-inverter/

 

It would be connected to many users with a distribution system modified to receive either grid power or battery power, a “microgrid”.

During a power outage, the battery system would take over, if the microgrid is undamaged.

 

Table 3/Battery Capital cost		Battery
	$/kWh	$million
Battery modules, Tesla price, FOB	300	1.2
Bi-directional inverters
Thermal management system
AC main breaker and controls
Battery complete, Tesla price, FOB	500	2.0
Land
Site preparation
Foundations
Electrical and substation
Test operation
Turnkey capital cost, per GMP	750	3.0

 

Production of Panton Solar System

Production data and capacity factors are shown in this URL

Production was 1.272 MWh at a capacity factor of 34.891% on May 1, 2020

The annual average CF is about 0.20, which is greater than normal 0.145, because, instead of panels at a fixed angle, the panel angle is automatically varied during the day, to better face the sun.

http://www.wvwelectric.com/plant/60562/M/SUN

 

Midday Solar Electricity Surges

The midday surge would be a maximum of about 4.9 x 0.8 = 3.92 MW, during a rare, very sunny, summer day

The working capacity only on very sunny days, would be increased to 75%

The battery would absorb a top slice of the surge, about 1 MW for 3 hours

 

During the late-afternoon/early-evening (peak demand hours), the battery would discharge “the surge”, at 1 MW for 3 hours, to reduce the peak demand by 1 MW.

The solar system would be of little use to reduce late-afternoon/early-evening peak demands, because solar would be almost asleep.

1) Simplified Analysis of Economics of Solar System of the GMP Combo Project

If a bank makes a $14.7 million loan at 9%/y for 25 years, it would require annual mortgage payments of $1,480,342 to recover the loan, plus interest.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

If GMP makes a $14.7 million investment in a solar system at 9%/y for 25 years, it would require annual revenues of $1,480,342 to “pay the mortgage”. GMP finances the solar system from its own resources.

Financial value of the battery system is assumed at zero at end of Year 25

Typically, utilities are allowed to earn 9%/y on investments.

The annual solar production is 4,900 kWh x 8766 h/y x 0.20, CF x 1000 kWh/MWh = 8,590,680 kWh

GMP sells at 11 c/kWh, as part of the VT “Standard Offer” program

90% of production is delivered to the grid as AC, or 7,731,612 kWh/y, and sold for $850,477/y, at 11 c/kWh

10% of production is drawn, as DC, by the battery system from the PV system to perform services.

8% of production is fed by the battery to the grid, and sold for $75,598/y, at 11 c/kWh

Battery loss is 0.2 x 859,068 = 171,814 kWh/y, or $18,899/y, at 11 c/kWh

Revenue total is $850,477 + $75,598 = $926,075/y

Cost of financing solar system is $1,480,342/y

Revenue shortfall is $1,480,342 - $926,075 = $554,267/y, which has to be provided, directly and indirectly, by 1) various subsidies from governments, and 2) from ratepayers and taxpayers, and 3) from additions to debt.

 

Cost of Solar/kWh

GMP receives from subsidies about $554,267 / (8,590,680 - 171,814) kWh/y = 6.27 c/kWh

Paid to GMP = 11, electricity sales + 6.27, subsidies = 17.27 c/kWh. See table 1

Owners of SO-qualified projects are able to accept 11 c/kWh, because they get subsidies worth 7 - 8 c/kWh.

 

Solar Variability a Cost Burden on Owners of Other Generators

Solar’s variability imposes extra burdens on the stability of the grid, such as midday electricity surges, the cost of which should be added to the cost of solar. See table 1

 

At present, those disturbance costs are minor. They are absorbed by Owners of other generators connected to the NE grid.

The more solar is installed, the greater the disturbance costs.

In the future, Owners would demand compensation, as they did elsewhere.

 

Other Annual Project Costs

A solar project has other costs, such as insurance, taxes, operating and maintenance costs, etc., which also are transferred to ratepayers and taxpayers, and to government debt (not to the Owner), which would increase electricity cost to at least 19.84 c/kWh. See table 1

2) Simplified Analysis of Economics of Battery System of the GMP Combo Project

 

If a bank makes a $3.0 million loan at 9%/y for 15 years, it would require annual mortgage payments of $365,136, to recover the loan, plus interest.

 

If GMP makes a $3.0 million investment in a battery system at 9%/y for 15 years, it would require annual payments of $365,136/y, to recover the investment, plus a 9%/y return on invested capital. GMP finances the solar system from its own resources.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

NOTE: A battery system does not produce any electricity.

It needs electricity throughput, and consumes some of that electricity, to perform various services

Some services, such as control of midday solar output surges, are performed at a financial loss, not paid by solar system owners

It is paid by: 1) various subsidies from governments, 2) ratepayers and taxpayers, and 3) added to government debt.

 

NOTE: This analysis assumes battery throughput at 10% of solar production

Throughput is limited to about 65% of battery rated capacity, to achieve 15-y battery life.

Revenues and costs are determined as c/kWh of throughput.

 

Minimum Battery System Operating Cost

 

If 100% financing by GMP

The battery system, operated from 15% full to 80% full, would have an annual throughput of 0.65 x 4000 kWh x 365 d/y = 949,000 kWh, or $365,136/949,000 kWh = 38.5 c/kWh, just to “pay the mortgage”, i.e., pay GMP.

 

If 50% financing by GMP, 50% by bank loan at 3.5%/y

The “mortgage payment” would be $365,136/2 + $128,679 = $311,248, or 32.8 c/kWh  

The above c/kWh are for maximum utilization of the battery.

The c/kWh values would increase, if the battery is used at less than maximum throughput, as happens in the real world.

 

It is off-the-charts absurd, for RE folks to claim, ”batteries are the way to go, to store excess production of wind and solar”, when the sun happens to shine, and the wind happens to blow, at the same time, in New England.  

The cost/kWh would increase, because:

 

1) “All other Costs” would be in addition

2) In the real world, the battery would not have that level of throughput on many days

3) The “working” throughput would decrease at 1.0 to 1.5 percent per year, due to aging, but the “mortgage payment” would not.   

 

NOTE: Financial value of the battery system is assumed at zero at end of Year 15

Typically, utilities are allowed to earn 9%/y on investments.

See Table 4

Annual Revenues and Subsidies

 

A battery needs electricity throughput to perform services.

Every time a battery is charging and discharging, whether a large charge/discharge, or very small, up to 20% of the charge is lost, as measured from solar system as DC to distribution grid as AC

The below calculations show, batteries perform services at very high costs/kWh of throughput, if all costs are included.

This analysis does not include all costs. See Ignored Costs of Solar and Battery Systems

 

Annual Revenues and Subsidies

The project must have annual revenues of at least $365,136 to “pay the mortgage”

Total revenue is $179,880/y, RNS and FCM reduction + $7,653/y, arbitrage gain = $187,533/y.

Revenue shortfall is $365,136 - $187,533 = $177,604/y

 

Required subsidies have to be $177,604, revenue shortfall + $102,468, surge control loss (see table 4) + $18,899, battery loss (see table 4) = $298,971/y, which would be charged to ratepayers and taxpayers, and added to government debt. See Notes

 

Battery Capacity Factor

Battery average draw from grid is 859,068 kWh/y, assumed at 10% of solar production / 365 d/y = 2,354 kWh/d

Battery rated capacity is 4000 kWh/d as AC

Battery annual average CF = 2354/4000 = 59%, in year 1, which is within the 65% working range

If the electricity throughput remains constant, the CF would increase, as the system rated capacity decreases, due to aging at about 1.0 to 1.5%/y.

Cost of Battery Services

Cost of battery draw from grid = $365,136 / (859,068 kWh, annual throughput) = 42.50 c/kWh.

Cost of required subsidies is $298,971 / 859,068 kWh = 34.80 c/kWh

Cost of battery operations 70.31 c/kWh. See Notes

NOTE: For many decades, traditional systems have been performing the same services as are envisioned for battery systems, at a cost of about 25 c/kWh or less. 

Because the turnkey capital cost of site-specific, custom-designed, utility-grade battery systems in New England is about $700/kWh delivered as AC, the cost of their services are about 2 to 3 times greater than traditional.

That cost level likely will slowly decrease over the next 5 years, as more utility-scale battery systems are built. See URL and Appendix 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45596

 

NOTE: This report shows values of battery owning and operating costs of 46 to 65 c/kWh, which are similar to the 70.31 c/kWh of this simplified analysis. See page 19 of URL

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1254196/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Ignored Costs of Solar and Battery Systems

 

1) O&M, which includes on-site use of electricity, labor and materials

2) Miscellaneous costs, such as insurance, taxes, etc.

3) Decommissioning and disposal of battery plant

4) Build new battery plant, or refurbish existing plant, to serve for 10 years, i.e., 25y, life of solar plant - 15y, life of battery plant

 

NOTE: Minor revenue could be obtained by using the battery for frequency regulation, i.e., rapidly absorbing and discharging very small quantities of electricity to maintain the grid frequency and voltage within the prescribed ranges.

 

NOTE:

- The GMP battery project is similar to a person buying a big house, without having enough income to make the monthly mortgage payments. Luckily, that person has parents, who voluntarily make up the shortage each month!!

 

- The GMP battery project does not have enough revenues. Luckily for GMP, 1) additions are made to government debt, and 2) ratepayers and taxpayers, who are coerced to make up the shortfall!!

 

- GMP wants to spread many heavily subsidized solar/battery combos all over Vermont, as part of its expensive “microgrid, climate fighting” strategy, which will be good for GMP financial results, but not good for ratepayers and taxpayers and the Vermont economy.

 

Comments on table 4

 

1) Gain from FCM and RNS Reduction

 

Significant revenue can be obtained by having the batteries reduce GMP peak demands, and thereby reduce RNS and FCM charges. These charges, imposed by ISO-NE, are a major expense of any utility.

 

The “Game of Picking Peaks” amounts to cost shifting from clever, early-adopter utilities, onto other utilities.

The ISO-NE costs of running the grid do not decrease. They continue to be spread among utilities.

The Game will end after more utilities learn to play the game.

 

The RNS value is $116.11/kW-year, or $9.68/kW-month, for 2020/2021

The FCM value is $5.30/kW-month, for 2020/2021

 

RNS reduction would be 1,000 kW x $9.69/kW-month = $9,690 for a month, or $116,280 for 12 months

FCM reduction would be 1,000 kW x $5.30/kW-month = $5,300 for a month, or $63,600 for 12 months.

Total reduction = $179,880/y

 

https://www.sandia.gov/ess-ssl/publications/SAND2017-6164.pdf

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2017/02/20170228_pr_...

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

GMP finances the solar system from its own resources.

2) Gain from Arbitrage

 

A very minor revenue can be obtained by “buying low, at night-time, and selling high, during peak hours”.

 

The battery could be partially charged from the grid from 10 pm to 6 am, at about 4 c/kWh, and be charged some more by absorbing a part of the solar output surge from 8 am to 4 pm, after which it would be discharged to the distribution grid from 4 pm to 10 pm, when, on average, grid prices are 7 c/kWh.

The arbitrage gain would be $7,653/y.

3) Loss due to Midday Solar Output Bulge

 

The battery could absorb 0.45 MW of solar output from 8 am to 4 pm = 0.45 x 8 h = 3.6 MWh as DC; which after a 7% loss, would add 3.35 MWh DC to the battery charge, which after a 10% loss, would deliver 3.01 MWh AC to the distribution grid, from 4 pm to 10 pm, when, on average, grid prices are 7 c/kWh.

The surge control cost would be $102,468/y. 

 

Expensive solar electricity at 17.27 c/kWh, of which 20% is lost, due to charging/discharging, with the left-over sold at 7 c/kWh!!

Would that loss be charged to Owners of solar systems, who are the grid disturbers?

Oh no, because that would "rain on the solar parade"

 

The surge electricity costs 17.27 c/kWh. The quantity should be determined by measurement.

This calculation uses 4 c/kWh for all charging, i.e., the arbitrage gain is overstated!!

 

4) Battery loss is $18,899/y, as shown above

Table 4
ISO-NE Reduction	Surge control		Arbitrage		Battery loss
FCM	MW	0.45	From grid, MW	0.45	kWh/y	8590680
5.3	h	8	h	8	10%	859068
1000	To battery, MWh	3.60	To battery, MWh	3.60	8%	687254
12	Loss fraction	0.07	Loss fraction	0.10	5%	171814
63600	Loss, MWh	0.25	Loss, MWh	0.36	c/kWh	0.11
	In battery, MWh, DC	3.35	In battery, MWh, DC	3.24	Loss, $/y	18899
RNS	Loss fraction	0.10	Loss, fraction	0.10	Net rev., $/y	926075
9.69	Loss, MWh	0.33	Loss, MWh	0.324	Mortgage, $/y	1480342
1000	To grid, MWh, AC	3.01	To grid, MWh, AC	2.92	Subsidies, $/y	554267
12	Charge cost, c/kWh	0.1768	Charge cost, c/kWh	0.04	c/kWh	17.27
116280	Charge cost, $/d	533	Charge cost, $/d	117
179880	Peak cost, c/kWh	0.07	Peak cost, c/kWh	0.07
	Revenue, $/d	252	Revenue, $/d	204
	Loss, $/d	281	Gain, $/d	87
	Loss, $/y	102468	Gain, $/y	7653

APPENDIX 1

Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Wind/Solar/Battery Systems

 

Buildings:

 

A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.

 

Vermont should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.

 

Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.

 

Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by:

 

1) Exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs

2) Insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings

3) Increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles

 

Such measures would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,100/Mt of electric school buses.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at

 

Vehicles:

 

Gas Guzzler Fee

 

Instead of RE folks fantasizing about banning gasoline vehicles, it would be far less expensive for Vermont to immediately enforce a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles. The fee would be collected at time of registration.

 

The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.

Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

 

EVs

 

RE folks would have everyone drive UNAFFORDABLE, MATCHBOX-SIZE, IMPRACTICLE EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.

 

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years (10,560 miles/y), the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:

 

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile

VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile

 

The above shows,

 

A NISSAN Leaf, a compact SUV, would have CO2 reduction of 30.3 Mt over 10 years (3 Mt/y), if compared with the VT LDV mix, which contains small and big vehicles.

 

A NISSAN Leaf would have CO2 reduction of 16.3 Mt over 10 years (1.63 Mt/y), if compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle

APPENDIX 3

New England has Poor Conditions for Wind and Solar

 

Some areas of the US are favorable for wind and solar systems, because of good winds, such as from North Dakota to the Mexican Border, and the sunny US southwest.

 

NE has poor conditions for wind systems, except on pristine ridge lines, and offshore areas

NE has the most unfavorable conditions for solar, except the rainy US northwest. See images

 

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

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

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

 

As a result, the costs of wind and solar electricity, c/kWh, would always be significantly greater in NE, than in the more favorable areas.

 

In the windy areas of the US, Owners of large-scale wind systems are paid about 5 c/kWh; they are said to be “competitive” with traditional fossil power plants.

 

However, these Owners would need to be paid about 9 - 10 c/kWh, if there were no subsidies, including the Production Tax Credit, PTC, of 1.8 c/kWh; tax credits are like gifts, they are much better than deductions from taxable income. The PTC, started in 1992, has been in effect for 28 years!!

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46576

 

Vagaries of Wind and Solar in New England

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-... 

  

Here is an example of a 6-day summer lull.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lul...

 

Here is an example of a multi-day winter lull.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-s...

 

Area Requirements of Energy Sources in New England

 

An August 2009 study for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory examined land-use data for 172 projects, representing about 80% of the installed and targeted wind capacity, in the U.S., and found an average area of 85 acres/MW. 

http://www.aweo.org/windarea.html

 

This study includes all area aspects of an energy source.

According to Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, the average is 60 acres/MW. Table 1 assumes an average of (85 + 60)/2 = 72.5 acre/MW 

https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf

 

A 1000 MW combined-cycle, gas-turbine plant, CCGT, on 343 acres produces 5.5 times the electricity of a 1000 MW solar plant on 8100 acres, i.e., solar needs 5.5 x 8100/343 = 130 times the land area of a CCGT plant to produce a MWh

 

A 1000 MW nuclear plant on 832 acres produces 6.2 times the electricity of a 1000 MW solar plant on 8100 acres, i.e., solar needs 6.2 x 8100/832 = 60.4 times the land area of a nuclear plant to produce a MWh

 

Low-cost CCGT and nuclear electricity: 

 

- Is not season/weather-dependent

- Is not variable 

- Is not intermittent

- Has minimal CO2 

- Has near-zero particulates.

Table 5/Source	Capacity	CF	Area	Ridge line	Production	Times	Production
New England	MW		acre/1000 MW	miles/1000 MW	MWh/y	solar	MWh/acre
Nuclear	1000	0.90	832		7,889,400	6.2	9,482
CCGT	1000	0.80	343		7,012,800	5.5	20,445
Wind	1000	0.30	72,500	62	2,629,800	2.1	36
Solar	1000	0.145	8,100		1,271,070	1.0	157

APPENDIX 4

Ridge Line Wind Turbine Systems

 

Any NE wind systems would need to be located where the winds are, i.e., on pristine, 2000 ft-high ridge lines, which would require:

 

1) Significant blasting to provide spacious erection areas for the 450 to 500 ft-high wind turbines

2) Several miles of heavy-duty, 50-ft wide access roads to reach and connect the erection areas

3) Extensive facilities for managing any rain and snow-melt water flows, including infrequent heavy rain-falls

 

The wind systems would devastate the already-fragile, mountain-top ecologies, which would have significant impacts further down the mountains. No self-respecting environmentalist, or sensitive human being, could ever approve of such wanton, highly visible, noisy, environmental destruction. See Note

 

Counteracting Services by Other Generating Plants and Cost Shifting: The Owners of other generators, mostly CCGT plants, are forced to expensively vary their outputs to counteract the variability of wind, 24/7/365.

 

The CCGT plant Owners are not compensated for their 1) increased wear and tear, 2) lesser operating efficiencies (greater Btu/kWh, greater CO2/kWh), and 3) revenue losses.

 

- Those costs are shifted, in one way or another, to the rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers.

- No cost ever disappears, per Economics 101.

- Those costs are not charged to Owners of wind systems, because that would “rain on the wind parade”

 

NOTE: Green Wrecking Ball: Germany Clearing “Undisturbed” 1000-Year-Old Forest, Make Way for Massive Wind Park

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-wrecking-ball-ge...

Lowell Mountain: The 63-MW wind turbine system, aka Kingdom “Community” Wind, on Lowell Mountain, owned by GMP, involved so much destruction that it “merited” a Manchester Guardian report, with aerial photos, a few years ago.

 

On top of that, it took about $20 million to connect that wind system to the NEK high voltage grid. It required:

 

1) A new synchronous condenser system, $10.5 million, to protect the high voltage grid

2) A new substation

3) Extensions/upgrades of high-voltage power lines, to ensure the rural grid would not be excessively disturbed, as the variable output might otherwise take down the entire northern Vermont grid.

 

- ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, on occasion, requires output curtailments, despite all these measures.

- GMP charges costs of the Lowell wind system to the rate base, subject to review by the VT Public Service Commission, PUC

- GMP uses various subsidies to reduce taxes it would have to pay on net profits, similar to Warren Buffett.

 

Future Build-outs of Offshore Wind Turbine Systems in New England

 

- MA, RI, and CT are planning to have 8460, 880, and 4160 MW, respectively, a total of 13,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035, much greater than the above 1600 MW.

- If the same simulation were made for 13,500 MW of wind turbines, the up/down spikes would be about

10,000 MW

- The existing CCGT plants would be inadequate to counteract them, i.e., output curtailments would be required.

- The 2035 date has a ring of urgency to it, but likely would be unattainable in the real world. See page 13 of NE-pool URL

 

It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%

 

With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable. The NE grid would need:

 

1) Curtailments of wind output, kWh, on windy days

2) Curtailments of solar output surges on sunny days

2) Major connections to the Canadian grid

3) Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh; turnkey capital cost about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

NOTE: Nearby countries import German overflow electricity, when it is windy and sunny, at low grid prices (because of a German surplus), and export to Germany, when it is not windy and not sunny, at high grid prices (because of a German shortage). 

The Netherlands is one of the major beneficiaries.

German households get to “enjoy” the highest electric rates in Europe, about 2.5 times as high as the US

Denmark, another wind country, is second!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/08/germanys-windexitold-wind-tu...