Posted on 03/28/2022 5:24:12 AM PDT by MtnClimber
If you are even a semi-regular reader of this blog, you know about the energy storage problem that is inherent in the effort to eliminate dispatchable fossil fuels from the electricity generation system and replace them with wind and solar. As discussed here many times, other than with nuclear power, the storage problem is the critical issue that must be addressed if there is ever going to be “net zero” electricity generation, let alone a “net zero” economy based on all energy usage having been electrified. For a sample of my prior posts on this subject just in the last few months, go here, here and here.
The problems of trying to provide enough storage to back up a fully wind and solar system without fossil fuels are so huge and so costly that you would think that everyone pushing the “net zero” agenda would be completely focused on these issues. And given that the issues are quite obvious, you would think that such people would be well down the curve with feasibility studies, cost studies, and demonstration projects to make their case on how their plans could be accomplished. Remarkably, that is not the case at all. Instead, if you read about the plans and proposals in various quarters for “net zero” in some short period of years, you quickly realize that the people pushing this agenda have no clue. No clue whatsoever.
Today, I am going to look at discussions of the storage situation coming out of three jurisdictions with ambitious “net zero” plans: California, Australia and New York. First a very brief summary of the problem. It is (or certainly should be) obvious that wind and solar generators have substantial periods when they generate nothing (e.g., calm nights), and other times when they generate far less than users demand. Get out a spreadsheet to do some calculations based on actual historical patterns of usage and generation from wind and solar sources, and you will find that to have a fully wind/solar generation system and make it through a year without a catastrophic failure, you will need approximately a three-times overbuild (based on rated capacity) of the wind/solar system, plus storage for something in the range of 24 - 30 days of average usage. For these purposes “usage” at any given moment is measured in gigawatts, but usage for some period of time is measured in gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. California’s average electricity usage for 2020 was about 31 GW; Australia’s was about 26 GW ; and New York’s was about 18 GW.
To calculate how much storage you need in gigawatt hours, multiply average usage in GW by 30 days and 24 hours per day. So California will need about 22,302 GWH of storage, Australia about 18,720 GWH, and New York about 12,960 GWH. That is to supply current levels of demand. For the “everything electrified” case, triple all of these numbers: 66,906 GWH for California, 56,160 GWH for Australia, and 38,880 GWH for New York. Price that out at current costs of Tesla-type lithium-ion batters (~$150/KWH) and you will get around $10 trillion for California, $8.4 trillion for Australia, and $5.8 trillion for New York. These figures are in the range of triple total annual GDP for each of these jurisdictions, before you even get to the cost of the three-times overbuild of the generations system to account for charging of the batteries when the sun is shining and wind blowing. Nor can Tesla-style batteries hold charge for months on end as would be necessary for this system, but at this point, that seems like a minor quibble.
With that, let’s consider some recent discussion of the march toward “net zero” in each of these jurisdictions:
California. On March 14, PV Magazine (I think that stands for “Photo Voltaic”) had a piece by Christian Roselund with the title “California’s solar market is now a battery market.” The gist is that California’s solar developers have now caught on to the need to pair batteries with their projects, and that therefore new projects going forward are as much battery projects as solar panel projects. Here’s a sample of the cheerleading:
No US state has led the energy transition like California has. . . . As a result California has been a pioneer for a range of clean energy technologies. . . . California is on the cusp of no longer being a solar market where batteries are being added – instead, it is becoming a battery market that (sometimes) includes solar.
So how much battery capacity is being added by the new projects?:
According to the American Clean Power Association, California had only 256MW of utility-scale batteries before 2020, but had reached 2.1GW by the end of 2021 – an eightfold increase. . . . The 256 solar-plus-storage projects representing 72GW of solar and 64GW of batteries make up the vast majority of hybrid projects in the CAISO queue. . . . California will need all the energy storage it can get its hands on; a recent analysis suggests that the state needs 37GW of batteries over the next 20 years, as well as 53.2GW of utility-scale solar.
It’s all GW, GW, GW. But guys, how about the amount of GWH that California will need? You will not find any mention of that unit in this piece. Sorry, but if those 64 GW of batteries you are planning to buy only store energy for one hour, then you will need to multiply your purchase by about a factor of a thousand. If they store energy for about four hours (typical of what you might be able to buy today), then multiply your purchase by a factor of 250.
Could they really be so far off from the actual problem? I’m afraid that the answer is yes.
Australia. Over in Australia, it appears that they have people who have figured out that they need to measure the storage requirements for wind/solar backup in GWH rather than GW. Here is a piece from March 25 from Energy Storage News, headline “Australia surpassed 1GWh of annual battery storage deployments during 2021.” That’s huge progress. But one GWH?
Read the article, and again it’s all cheerleading for the great progress being made:
[F]or Victoria it was a record-breaking year, while NSW has already recorded strong installation volumes and its tally of 7,377 installations was in line with figures in recent years. . . . Victoria hosts a 48% share of the commercial and grid-scale operating capacity today, with South Australia the next biggest at 24%, Queensland on 14% and NSW on 9%. Last year, the Victorian Big Battery came online, which at 300MW/450MWh made a big contribution to the state’s total.
And how much is in the pipeline?:
There is around 1,000MWh of grid-scale energy storage currently under construction, but the development pipeline of projects is a massive 57GWh.
“A massive” 57 GWH. Really? Has anyone told them that they are going to need more like 56,160 GWH to fulfill their “net zero” fantasies? Like California, they are off by about a factor of 1000. Here is a picture from the article of what a Tesla-type battery installation for a mere 150 MWH looks like. That’s well less than 1/6 of one GWH.
Looks like they’re going to need 400,000 +/- of these installations. And by the way, these Tesla-style batteries have no ability to store energy without loss for months on end. Good luck trying to find anyone addressing these issues.
New York. In crazy New York, we have a statute passed in 2019 that requires state-wide greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to 60% of 1990 levels by 2030. Since electricity is less than 1/3 of final energy consumption, this would necessarily mean that all fossil fuel electricity generation will be gone in 8 years.
How to do that? A collection of panels and advisory bodies have been putting out reams of reports, thousands of pages in the aggregate. Nobody could possibly keep up. On the other hand, it is obvious that essentially no batteries are yet under construction.
A lone guy named Roger Caiazza, who blogs as the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York, is the only critical thinker I am aware of who tries to read most of this stuff. On March 25 Caiazza had a post titled “What the Experts Are Saying Now.” That post was also picked up at Watts Up With That here.
Here’s Caiazza’s big discovery. Rather than proposing a massive build of batteries, New York’s “experts” think they have a better idea: the “DEFR”. That stands for “Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource.” And what exactly is that? As far as Caiazza can determine, it’s something that hasn’t been invented yet. Caiazza links to this March 24 Report from New York’s Independent System Operator, title “System and Resource Outlook Update.” Plow your way through through 17 pages of incomprehensible gibberish and you will come to this on page 18:
DEFR Builds Allowed Starting in 2030
Input Assumption Adjusted: – First allowable year for DEFR builds advanced to 2030
• Caveats:
– Significant uncertainty related to cost / availability of DEFR technologies, as well as regulatory definition of “zero-emissions” compliant technologies
– Assumption is not based on estimate of realistic timeline for first potential DEFR additions
Observations:
– DEFR capacity build earlier on in model horizon,
although comparable capacity builds by 2040
– Decreased fossil capacity (i.e., primarily earlier retirements and less new builds) offset by earlier DEFR capacity additions
Yes, we are to be completely dependent on so-called “DEFR” technologies, which have not been invented yet and as to which “significant uncertainties” exist. Could this get any more ridiculous?
I guess if you work at the ISO and open your mouth and say “this can’t possibly work,” you will be immediately fired. And so we plow forward with religious zeal, until one day we hit the wall.
And almost no discussion about nuclear power for base demand or the need for gas turbines for fast ramp-up at peak capacity use times.
there will be no energy to store.
this stupidity it brought to you by the
same MORONS and GENOCIDAL MANIACS
who stole and election and then
who KNOWINGLY injected death and AIDs-by-JAB
to billions ... so far without accountability.
“Instead, if you read about the plans and proposals in various quarters for “net zero” in some short period of years, you quickly realize that the people pushing this agenda have no clue. No clue whatsoever.”
Oh, they do. Trust me. They do.
One of the treat truths of this century is that the people that yell “trust the science” are usually the ones who couldn’t pass a high school science test.
I agree. I think nuclear is the ultimate “Green Power”.
But after a very successful anti-nuclear propaganda campaign in the 80s & 90s, nuclear power is a long way in the future. If ever.
Hell, I am old enough to remember a nuclear power plant that was built, certified and promptly decommissioned, then converted to natural gas. Fort Saint Vrain in Colorado.
If it had been left nuclear, you would not be seeing those thousands of acres of windmills soiling the views north of Greeley.
Not only that, what are they going to do with all of those dead batteries (that keep blowing up on their own)? We already have mountains of garbage. Add to that, the thousands of spent windmill blades (or perhaps millions) that will need to be disposed of. They represent a far greater hazard than Oil and Gas clean up ever did. What about the environment?
Also no talk about hydro. The one completely renewable power source that is also reliable.
But environmental regulations have made it impossible to build new dams and we haven’t in decades.
“One of the (gr)eat truths of this century is that the people that yell “trust the science” are usually the ones who couldn’t pass a high school science test.”
This has occured to me also.
Laws of physics and chemistry aren’t just good ideas, they are the laws.
Also, actual “science” is a constant battle and struggle to extract “the truth” (=law). Very, very few “laws” emerge from these struggles.
This website pretty much NAILS IT regarding the calculations needed to assess these pipe dreams. Two things I don’t quite agree with, though:
$150/kwh: Sounds low. I would expect double, especially considering the infrastructure to utilize the batteries.
Self Discharging: My experience is that’s only a significant factor when the battery is being used for something while it appears dormant, like keeping itself warm in an EV. But even at 1% a week (which would be very high), it still wouldn’t take much extra capability to cover for it (5% extra generation would be enough to cover the 1%/week self-discharge).
Otherwise, they are right, literally NOTHING is being done. It seems their goal right now is to severely underprice the cost, by not including storage. Then later, they’ll start with storage. In the meantime, they’ll likely do what Germany did and take the cleanest non-nuclear conventional fuel, which is natural gas, and call it Green...and start building boatloads of gas-fired powerplants...and then, only later, start the really expensive process of trying to retire them for some form of storage.
It’s an interesting strategy, and the only thing that makes sense based on what they’re doing. And again, the people at the top ARE NOT DUMB, they do have a plan...and it’s probably the German model. And they know their plan would be DOA, if they tried to include storage.
It's impossible to talk to them, too. They're just too stupid to understand the facts. About, anything.
One of the real problems here is that I don’t think that people understand what kind of power at an industrial scale is required to run our modern civilization. This is not all about lighting a home or running a car. How did the car and home get there? The road that the car drives on?
“But environmental regulations have made it impossible to build new dams and we haven’t in decades”
Those aside, most of the easy, high impact hydro opportunities have already been exploited. Tidal power, a cousin, has monumental engineering challenges.
> Also, actual “science” is a constant battle and struggle to extract “the truth” (=law). <
Yep. One of the really ugly things about this whole Climate Change / Green thing is that no one is allowed to debate the issue. The necessary struggle that you mentioned is now forbidden.
So much for the Age of Enlightenment. Back to the Dark Ages we go...and in more ways than one.
Interesting to think that stored energy is exactly what we’re using now, namely, the fossilized remains of plant and animal matter.
im binge watching flintstones and gilligans island
lot of good ideas to survive under the green new steal
$150/kWh is low. I paid $310/kWh for my home solar battery storage -- avoiding Tesla Powerwalls because they're almost as expensive as when I was married to my ex. I also agree with you that the self discharging is a non-issue. Maybe it's an issue in climates that aren't like moderate climate Alabama, but I haven't had a problem with self discharging through my first year of use.
I agree with the premise of the article. "Net zero" is a pipe dream like Ole Miss fans dreaming of a strong defense.
Don't get me wrong. I like my solar system. It works well for me in my situation. Other Freepers ought to consider their situations to see if it'd work for them and free them from the Dims jacking up their energy costs. Last year mine produced 55% of the power I needed in my now all-electric two story house. I like it so much I'm about to upgrade it and get an EV -- I'll produce about 85% to 90% of all the power I'll consume with my two-story all-electric house plus charge an EV for ~200 miles per week. Based on my past year's performance from my solar system, needing about 16kWh/day for the EV, but not every day because it'll have 300-mile range (let's say 200 miles because no one waits until their tank is empty before refilling), that means I don't have to charge my EV every day. I can wait a few days if needed to get through bad weather before charging (on most days, not counting an every now and then extensive use situation).
Even with all that works for my situation, and even with the fact that I'm doing it (read: making it most efficient for my family in our situation unlike a bureaucrat demanding engineers follow "regulations"), we're still looking at me depending 10% to 15% on fossil fueled power. Plus we'll still have a gas powered car, even if we don't use it as much as we do now (i.e. just for long trips or if I and my wife drive separately for a day to take care of different chores or such). So "net zero" is an impossibility, even with all the sun I get in Alabama.
All the "green energy" stuff is even less of a full solution when gubment control-freaks work it.
“If it had been left nuclear, you would not be seeing those thousands of acres of windmills soiling the views north of Greeley.”
They are all over the east of Colorado too. They put them up close to airports, which is very dangerous. The Limon airport has a bunch of them that requires new approaches to the airport.
Nothing like an ignoramus to bring out all the dissenting ignoramuses.
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.