Comments - Backlash from US states to clean energy agenda - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-29T11:07:12Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A215135&xn_auth=noHIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AN…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-04-12:4401701:Comment:2154032021-04-12T17:02:17.861ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>The turnkey capital cost for implementing the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, would be in excess of <strong>$1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years (2017 - 2050)</strong>,…</p>
<p><strong>HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>The turnkey capital cost for implementing the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, would be in excess of <strong>$1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years (2017 - 2050)</strong>, according to a 2015 Energy Action Network annual report. If updated to 2021, the numbers would be about <strong>$1.25 billion/y for 29 years (2021 - 2050)</strong>. The CEP lists many measures to reduce CO2 by up to 80%, including the building out of wind and solar systems. See URLs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-Low-Res-Final.pdf">http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-Low-Res-Final.pdf</a> </p>
<p><a href="https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016CEP_Final.pdf">https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016CEP_Final.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Spending on government energy programs, including Efficiency Vermont, has averaged about <strong>$210 million/y from 2000 to 2015</strong>, a total of at least $2.5 billion, but Vermont CO2 emissions increased from 9.64 million metric ton in 2000, to 9.99 MMt in 2015, an increase of 3.6%.</p>
<p><a href="https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/documents/_Vermont_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Inventory_Update_1990-2015.pdf">https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/documents/_Vermont_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Inventory_Update_1990-2015.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>That means, on average:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) These RE projects have been expensive failures for 20 years</p>
<p>2) These RE programs led to higher energy prices, and higher other prices, than they would have been without those wasteful programs.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket-regarding-foolish-energy">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket-regarding-foolish-energy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those who advocate giving the same incompetent RE folks <strong>five times</strong> as much money per year, to implement the Shumlin/Klein-inspired VT CEP, per mandate of the unconstitutional GWSA, are very far beyond rational.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Advice</strong>: When you are stuck in a pit, it is best to stop digging, and find something better to do, such as increased energy efficiency, which would reduce CO2 at a very low cost per metric ton. See Appendix.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>New England has Unfavorable Conditions for Wind and Solar</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>NE has very poor conditions for wind systems, except on its pristine ridge lines, and some offshore areas</p>
<p>NE has the most unfavorable conditions for solar, except the rainy US northwest.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the <strong>windy areas</strong>, owners of very large-scale wind systems are paid about 5 c/kWh; they are said to be “competitive” with traditional fossil power plants.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, these owners would need to be paid about 9 - 10 c/kWh, if there were no subsidies, including the Production <strong>Tax Credit</strong>, PTC, of 1.8 c/kWh; tax credits are like gifts, they are much better than deductions from taxable income.</p>
<p>The PTC, started in 1992, has been in effect for 28 years!! It looks like it will never end.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46576">https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46576</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Warren Buffett Quote:</strong> "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." </p>
<p><a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment">https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Green Mountain Power, GMP:</strong> Vermont utilities buy about 1.4 million MWh/y of hydro power, at 5.7 c/kWh, under a 20-y contract, from Hydro Quebec. The HQ electricity is not variable, not intermittent and does not cause midday solar bulges</p>
<p> </p>
<p>GMP, a Canadian company, does not want to buy more hydro power from HQ, because that electricity would just be a “pass-through”, on which GMP would make minimal profit. HQ has the electricity and is eager to sell it to Vermont.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Instead, GMP wants to install solar/battery system combos all over Vermont. as part of its expensive micro-grid strategy. The solar electricity (already very expensive; see table 2) is variable, is intermittent and causes midday solar bulges. However, the batteries would very-expensively take care of those grid-disturbing deficiencies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The 90% of production, bypassing the batteries, likely would be charged to the GMP rate base at 11 to 12 c/kWh</p>
<p>The 10% of production, passing through the batteries, likely would be charged to the GMP rate base at about 21.6 c/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The solar/battery combo strategy is much more profitable for GMP, even though it would lead to significantly increase electricity costs for Vermonters.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Both systems come with: 1) grants from various sources, 2) 30% federal investment tax credits, plus state FITs, 3) 100% depreciation over 5 years, plus 4) deduction of interest on any borrowed money. The tax credits reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes GMP would have to pay on net profits.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Vagaries of Wind and Solar in New England</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-in-new-england</a> </p>
<p>This article describes:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The variability and intermittency of wind and solar;</p>
<p>2) Multi-day, simultaneous wind/solar lulls.</p>
<p>3) Duck-curves due to midday solar output bulges.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is an example of a 6-day summer lull.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lull-of-wind-and-solar-during-summer-in-new">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lul...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is an example of a multi-day winter lull.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Midday solar output, on sunny days, often is more than needed. The “<strong>100%-RE-in-Vermont”</strong> folks want to charge the unused electricity into battery systems and discharge it during peak demand hours. They propose a $1.2 billion <strong>down-payment</strong> on “Fortress Vermont”.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- About $900 million would be for new battery systems, during the 2020 – 2025 period.</p>
<p>That would serve a solar installed capacity of 1000 MW in 2025.</p>
<p>At least $2 billion would be required to serve 3000 MW by 2050, per CEP</p>
<p>The battery capacity would be about $900 million/($750/kWh) = 1200 MWh, i.e., 300 MW delivered for 4 hours. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>- About $300 million would be to pay solar system owners whose electricity outputs would be curtailed during high winds and very sunny days, during the 2020 – 2025 period.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-multi-billion-boondoggle-foisted-onto">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-multi-billion-boondoggle-foisted-onto</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Area Requirements of Energy Sources in New England</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>An <a href="http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=2337">August 2009 study for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory</a> 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. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.aweo.org/windarea.html">http://www.aweo.org/windarea.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This study includes all area aspects of an energy source.</p>
<p>According to Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, the average total land use for wind<br/>is 60 acres/MW. Table 1 assumes an average of (85 + 60)/2 = 72.5 acre/MW </p>
<p><a href="https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf">https://www.strata.org/pdf/2017/footprints-full.pdf</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>A 1000 MW CCGT plant 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</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The CCGT and nuclear electricity: </p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Is not season/weather-dependent,</p>
<p>2) Is not variable </p>
<p>3) Is not intermittent</p>
<p>4) Has minimal CO2 </p>
<p>5) Has near-zero particulates</p>
<p>6) Costs less than 5 c/kWh for legacy plants, and about 10 c/kWh for new plants </p>
<p>See table 1. See table 2 for solar costs.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Table 1/Source</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><span> </span>Capacity</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>CF</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Area</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Ridge line</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Production</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>Times</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;"><span> </span>Production</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>New England</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">MW</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>acre/1000 MW</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>miles/1000 MW</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>MWh/y</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>solar</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">MWh/acre</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Nuclear</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>0.90</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>832</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>7,889,400</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>6.2</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">9,482</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>CCGT</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>0.80</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>343</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>7,012,800</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>5.5</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">20,445</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Wind</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>0.30</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>72,500</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>62</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>2,629,800</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>2.1</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">36</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Solar</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">1000</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>0.145</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>8,100</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"></td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>1,271,070</p>
</td>
<td style="text-align: right;"><p>1.0</p>
</td>
<td><p style="text-align: right;">157</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong> </strong><strong><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8785640484?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/8785640484?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="543" height="545"/></a> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Subsidies and Costs of Wind, Solar and Battery Systems</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The owning and operating cost of wind, solar and battery systems, c/kWh, is reduced by about 40 - 45%, due to subsidies, such as:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Generous state and federal tax credits</p>
<p>2) State and federal grants</p>
<p>3) Accelerated depreciation write-offs over about 5 years, much shorter than the normal 20 to 25-year, write-off period for utilities.</p>
<p>4) Deductibility of interest costs</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, because no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101, the subsidy costs are “socialized”, i.e., added, in one way or another, onto:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers,</p>
<p>2) Taxpayers, by means of extra taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills and fuel bills.</p>
<p>3) Government budgets</p>
<p>4) Government debt</p>
<p>5) Prices of goods and services other than electricity</p>
<p>6) Ratepayers, taxpayers the costs of: 1) grid extensions/augmentations, 2) grid support services, and 3) battery systems </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the subsidies had to be paid by owners of wind, solar and battery systems, the contract prices paid to owners would need to be:</p>
<p><br/>- At least 19.6 c/kWh, instead of 11 c/kWh, in case of large-scale solar</p>
<p>- At least 16.4 c/kWh, instead of 9 c/kWh, in case of ridge line wind. See table 1</p>
<p></p>