A Response to Rick Perry Regarding Renewables and Grid Stability
Folks, did you see the Rick Perry memo to DOE staff asking them to evaluate a decrease of “baseload power” to grid reliability”? https://s3.amazonaws.com/dive_static/paychek/energy_memo.pdf My take is that Perry wants DOE to conclude support for renewables will make the lights go off, to bolster support for the dying coal industry. Sorry, Secretary Perry, the facts don’t support that.
We analyzed how the grid reliability, as measured by “customer outage minutes per year” of countries with the HIGHEST renewable penetration (Denmark, Germany) compare with the USA. The result? Germany and Denmark have 2-4 times the renewables of the USA, but have much more reliable power, in fact only 10% of the outages that US customers do.
Can the US achieve comparable levels of renewables as Europe and will the grid be OK? Absolutely! PJM, the nation’s largest and most sophisticated Regional Transmission Organization, completed a deep study concluding the system “will not have any significant issues operating with up to 30% of its energy provided by wind and solar generation”. https://www.pjm.com/~/media/committees-groups/subcommittees/irs/postings/pris-executive-summary.ashx , and that in that scenario, lower fuel, variable operations costs, and lower average Locational Marginal Prices result. Further, the report noted that central PV has effective load carrying capability (ELCC) during critical summer peak of 62-66%. ELCCs are further improved with advanced PV trackers (https://www.nextracker.com/)
The Perry memo had other inaccuracies; that the US grid was world’s most modern, that adding renewables decreases grid diversity, that renewables policies are negatively impacting jobs, etc. We need to work with the Energy Secretary and educate that a modern and diverse grid, with highly responsive gas turbines, renewables with solid state power electronics, and emerging storage is MORE reliable, lower cost, and more job creating, than supporting 50-100 year old, expensive must-run “baseload” technologies like coal and nuclear and have serious, unresolved environmental issues.
In our view, the solution for the US grid to achieve comparable reliability to Europe doesn't require big investments. The first step is to expand the energy balancing areas; instead of small utility fiefdoms each with their own spinning reserves. PJM is a great example of doing it right. In the West one could imagine a single grid west of the Rockies, and a couple new strategic DC links linking to ERCOT in Texas and other RTOs; some of which already under construction. That would solve the "Duck Curve" and enable lower cost, more reliable power for customers, as well as a grid that easily handle an order of magnitude increase in renewable power. Let's create jobs and true energy independence as we lower costs and protect the environment for all of us to enjoy. That's a future we can get excited about!
Best - Shug
Partner/Owner at Spectrum Energy Development Inc
7 年Spot on Dan. As you clearly note, expanding the energy balancing areas would do much to resolve any problems from high penetration non-dispatchable renewables. Keep up the great work.
Retired
7 年Projected World population growth particularly in developing nations will require huge energy supply increases. Barring the greatest technology discovery in history, primarily fossil fuels will meet that demand. Thus worldwide atmospheric CO2 concentrations will increase. The only true solution is strict world population control laws. Of course that will never happen.
Director, Strategic Response at ARC
7 年Daniel, I can't agree with your article. PV idiolizers such as you can't seem to understand PV still is an unreliable way to assure any full base load, thus no matter how nice you want to paint such lack producing stable power, let me introduce you to our technology which is soon to change how energy is created, It is called 100% Solar Thermal Hybrid full base load energy. And no, we are not an European Technology, we are a 100% American breakthrough. I invite you to call me or email me, it will be my pleasure to give you a tour to the now best renewable energy on the planet, here in beautiful San Diego, California.
Managing Partner at Southern Chemical Solutions
7 年Good thing Germany and Denmark are the same size and population as the US and have comparably sizable grids and distribution needs and challenges (apple, meet orange). Good thing the input costs are so inexpensive for "renewables". Good thing they don't require tax subsidies and outright fraud to compete. They are the future in some basket that will still have "fossil fuels", I would just like them to compete on their own merit, unsubsidized by myself and the rest of the American taxpayers for rent seekers like Elon Musk. Question - what is the fossil fuel input needed from nasty old coal and Petro HCs to produce the tons of steel and concrete to build a single wind turbine? The thousands of gallons of sulfuric acid (a derivative of the Petrochem market) to build a solar cell? The heavy metals, rare earths and lithium in both the batteries and the greased turbines? Why is Europe going back to BURNING WOOD (biomass) as the primary way to create these "renewable" load capacities? That is regressive and not the future. Seriously, I like Solar, just tired of being sold a bill of goods on the econ of it. At least when a mugger takes my wallet, I know what the true cost has been. I am also not excusing any other rent-seeking industry, including my own, O&G.
PE
7 年Great response Dan and wish Mr. Perry will read and learn. Leave your thoughts here…