Posted on 05/19/2021 4:12:19 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Let’s face it, lots of people aren’t very good at math, even rather basic math. On the other hand, some people are quite good at it. If you aren’t very good at math, there are plenty of other things for you to do in life. My own field of law practice mostly does not require much skill at math, and there a plenty of math-challenged people who are nevertheless very good lawyers.
But some big societal decisions require a certain level of math competence. Some of these decisions can involve multi-hundreds of billions of dollars, or even multi-trillions of dollars. For example, consider the question of whether proposed electricity generation system X has the capability to deliver the amount of electricity a state or region needs, and at the times it is needed. Answering this question is just a matter of applied basic arithmetic. Given the dollars involved, you would think that when a question like this is being addressed, it would be time to call in some people who could do the arithmetic, or who at least would be willing to try.
Yet when the issue is replacing generation of electricity by fossil fuels with generation by “renewables,” it seems that the need to believe that the renewables will work and be cost effective is so powerful that all efforts to do the arithmetic get banished. I last considered this issue in a post last week titled “California’s Zero Carbon Plans: Can Anybody Here Do Basic Arithmetic?” The answer for the California government electricity planners was a resounding “NO.” Today, the Wall Street Journal joins the math-challenged club with a front page story headlined “Batteries Challenge Natural Gas As America’s No. 1 Power Source.” (probably behind pay wall)
The theme of the story is that “renewable” energy sources, such as solar, paired with batteries to balance periods of low production, are rapidly becoming so cheap that they are likely to “disrupt” natural gas plants that have only recently been constructed:
[T]he combination of batteries and renewable energy is threatening to upend billions of dollars in natural-gas investments, raising concerns about whether power plants built in the past 10 years—financed with the expectation that they would run for decades—will become “stranded assets,” facilities that retire before they pay for themselves. . . . But renewables have become increasingly cost-competitive without subsidies in recent years, spurring more companies to voluntarily cut carbon emissions by investing in wind and solar power at the expense of that generated from fossil fuels.
To bolster the theme, we are introduced to industry executives who are shifting their investment strategies away from natural gas to catch the new renewables-plus-batteries wave. For example:
Vistra Corp. owns 36 natural-gas power plants, one of America’s largest fleets. It doesn’t plan to buy or build any more. Instead, Vistra intends to invest more than $1 billion in solar farms and battery storage units in Texas and California as it tries to transform its business to survive in an electricity industry being reshaped by new technology. “I’m hellbent on not becoming the next Blockbuster Video, ” said Vistra Chief Executive Curt Morgan.
But how does one of these solar-plus-battery systems work? Or for that matter, how does a wind-plus-battery system work? Can anybody do the arithmetic here to demonstrate how much battery capacity (in both MW and MWH) it will take to balance out a given set of solar cells at some particular location so that no fossil fuel backup is needed? You will not find that in this article.
Here’s something that ought to be obvious: solar panels at any location in the northern hemisphere will produce less power in the winter than in the summer. The days are shorter, and the sun is lower in the sky and consequently weaker. Therefore, any system consisting solely of solar panels plus batteries, where the batteries are seeking to balance the system over the course of a year, will see the batteries drawn down continuously from September to March, and then recharged from March to September. Do batteries that can deal with such an annual cycle of seasons even exist? From the Journal piece:
And while batteries can provide stored power when other sources are down, most current batteries can deliver power only for several hours before needing to recharge. That makes them nearly useless during extended outages. . . . Most current storage batteries can discharge for four hours at most before needing to recharge.
OK, then, so if solar-plus-battery systems are about to displace natural gas plants, what’s the plan for winter? They won’t say. The fact is, the only possible plans are either fossil fuel backup or trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of batteries. But the author never mentions any of that. How much fossil fuel backup? That’s an arithmetic calculation that is not difficult to make. But the process of making the calculation forces you to actually propose the characteristics of your solar-plus-battery system, which then makes the costs obvious. How much excess capacity of solar panels and batteries do you plan to build to minimize the down periods? Do you need solar panel capacity of four times peak usage, or ten times? Do you need battery capacity of one week’s average usage (in GWH) or two weeks or a full month?
The simple fact is that wind/solar plus battery systems would not need any government subsidies if they were cost effective. The Biden Administration is proposing to hand out many, many tens of billions of dollars to subsidize building these systems. They are clearly not cost-effective, and not even close. But no one in a position to know will make the relatively simple calculations to let us know how much this is going to cost. Even the Wall Street Journal can’t seem to grasp the math involved. And President Biden? It’s embarrassing even to ask the question.
A note of thanks to Francis Menton who allows his entire articles to be posted as long as there is attribution and a link. Much appreciated.
A good reminder that even the WSJ can only use the “journalists” on offer from the US “journalism” schools. It long ago became worth reading only for the (usually but not always) conservative opinions and editorials.
You need to subsidize stuff that doesn’t work.
If it worked, it wouldn’t need to be subsidized.
Why are we pushing an energy “solution” that doesn’t work?
“solar panels at any location in the northern hemisphere will produce less power in the winter than in the summer.”
That’s true, but this article also ignores that power consumption is lower in the winter.
Looking at the Southwest, the only part of the country solar is truly useful, solar production is about 25% lower in January than it is in June. But consumption is about 30% lower when comparing those same months.
Because it "feels" good/right. This isn't about science or math or fact, it's about feeling. Virtue signaling is social cancer.
That was true 10 years ago, but now even without subsidies nothing is cheaper than a mix of solar, wind, and natural gas.
If it’s actually the cheapest solution then why the HELL is it getting a subsidy??
It is not cost effective. People who say it’s cheap are either dishonest or uninformed.
Wait, I thought it was:
"Where the days are longer
The nights are stronger
Than moonshine"
Someone clearly lied!
You got that right!!!
How much does solar generate in terms of total energy production in the Southwest, percentage wise?
If you want to get rid of fossil fuels for electrical generation there is only one solution, nuclear power.
Tell that to those of us that froze our butts off here in SE Texas when the wind farm could not keep up with demand.
Last year solar provided about 10% of power in the Southwest, up from almost nothing 10 years ago.
The growth is accelerating. 10 years from now it will be providing 25 to 30% of power needs.
Peruse later.
Where are the raw materials to come from, how much diesel fuel to mine them, and what about the ecological impacts of the mining operations? The beings in the UAPs watching us must be laughing their reproductive parts off at our insanity.
Hard to believe growth will be accelerating at the same time population growth and a greater use of electrical vehicles will place additional demands on the system. Nuclear seems the way to go.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ
, but this article also ignores that power consumption is lower in the winter.
.......do you mean to infer that the further north you get, that there is no need for heat in the winter. The Southwest uses electricity for cooling in summer, less so,in winter. Surely, you don’t live in anywhere that has cold winter. Less power from the sun, and less heat from the sun, at the same time.
I would love if someone came up with a way for nuclear to make sense, but the economics are hard. It’s not just that the cost is high, but a new plant is a multi-billion dollar investment that takes 20 years to get built.
If I’m running a utility, I’m going to pick a collection of smaller, faster, low risk projects over a new reactor every time.
OTOH, reaching that magic 10% in solar/wind begins to add its own costs to maintaining a stable power system. We’ll see how well it continues to increase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.