Well, DER doesn't really need that much storage if it's thought about and managed creatively. Yes, sharing of energy flows needs to be much more dynamic, but I think modern controls and digitization are up for that. And plans for large scale wind+solar+water+storage, whether that storage is battery or electrolyzed water into Hydrogen, with Hydrogen burned to recapture (admittedly with big conversion losses), don't see to take advantage of features of wind+solar+water+storage in the circa 2030 time frame.
low, as long as land is available and unconstrained. Accordingly, overbuild is a viable option. If it's done on the meteorological synoptic scale, and say build to 4 times the median maximum electrical draw of that region per day, you only need 4-7 days of storage to handle the tail cases. All the other times, the system is generating way more than needed. It's silly to throttle that, so why not dump it into manufacturing, or electrolyze water?
It's estimated that capital costs per kWh of wind+solar+storage in the early 2030s will be
of the cost of transmission on the grid per kWh at that time. (Transmission costs are increasing, and they'll increase further as storms get more severe.) That has serious implications for how electricity will be provided to an electricity-hungry society, particularly to big users. Is
going to want to tap into the conventional grid if the cost advantages of local generation prove that good?
Original Message:
Sent: 11-01-2021 11:02 AM
From: Hugh Willis
Subject: Is Joe Manchin killing a clean energy bill that probably should die?
I agree whole-heartedly "this is incredibly well written". And informative. And logical.
I would like to add two points -
First, the world's manufacturers cannot produce pv panels fast enough to meet a worldwide overnight explosion in demand - (And even if the chip and panel manufacturers did further accelerate ramping up their production to enable an even more rapid "one-time" shift from carbon-based to solar-based (pv) energy, how would they stay in business once that first major shift is accomplished)?
As Jay Warmke says, the economics of renewables are already pushing rapidly increasing demand. Do we really need the government "piling on" and making an already strained situation unmanageable?
Second - What might be the best role for the electrical utilities in a new era where distributed energy resources ("DER") are increasingly a part of the picture? And how can Congress best encourage that shift to a new role for the utilities?
As I commented in another thread recently,
"Looking to the future, centralized power production will continue to utilize hydro and nuclear, and perhaps someday "clean" fusion. But until (if ever) controlled fusion becomes a reality, our future carbon-free electricity needs will likely be met primarily by distributed energy resources ("DER"), largely wind and pv.
"The 'Achilles heel' of DER is storage, and it is expensive. The distributed energy resources (mainly pv and wind) are not always needed when they are available, and aren't available when and where they are needed. Balancing these mismatches may be the key role for electric utilities in future.
"This can go in one of two ways - (1). Our electrical utilities can be part of the solution by recasting themselves from their emphasis on being power generators (with distribution being necessary only in order to "deliver the goods") to being primarily in the electrical storage and distribution business - i.e., emphasizing moving distributed energy from when and where it is being produced to when and where it is needed; or
(2) Distributed energy producers (i.e., [all of us] owners of wind or pv systems) can make their own "capital-intensive" investments in local storage, and drop off the grid altogether."
Only by shifting their focus from power generation to meeting their customers' energy needs via redistribution of "DER', can today's electrical utilities assure they will continue to have a key role to play in the future. Government policies to encourage this shift in role for the utilities, while we all of us continue to move ahead with our own investments in "DER" (perhaps with some government assistance, as Jay suggests) might be a far better way to go than what the current "Clean Energy" bill proposes.
------------------------------
Hugh Willis
Old Engrs Never Really Retire
GREENSBORO, NC
Original Message:
Sent: 10-29-2021 02:35 AM
From: Jay Warmke
Subject: Is Joe Manchin killing a clean energy bill that probably should die?
There has been a lot of talk in the media lately about how Joe Manchin is trying to destroy the environment by killing the "clean electricity" provision in the reconciliation bill before the Senate. The Left hate him saying he just wants to get rich off coal and the Right hate him just because he's a Democrat.
But are we being fair to Joe Manchin, or does he have a point?
What exactly does this provision do anyway? I'm all for government helping in our transition to renewable energy. But just because someone says a proposal is a "renewable energy" provision – is it really a good and logical use of taxpayer money?
What does the Clean Electricity Provision Do?
If the $150 billion plan is described at all, reports generally state that it would reward utilities for installing clean renewable generating capacity and punish them for using fossil fuels. Sounds simple enough.
Digging into the details, it appears (I say appears because nobody really seems to know), that the bill would pay utilities if they increase the amount of energy they produce "cleanly" by 4% per year, and fine them if they don't. Remember, "clean" also includes nuclear – so be careful what you wish for. And it will pay them a lot. About three times as much per MWh as they could sell the energy for.
Initially this sounds like a good thing. Currently renewable energy sources account for about 20% of national utility electrical generation. Nuclear accounts for another 19%. So the "clean" energy on the grid is at about 39%.
If we increase the amount of clean energy generated by 4% each year, year after year, then by 2030 we should get to about 60% of all electricity generated on the grid coming from clean sources. All good, right?
It is argued that with this bill we will get to 60% (or better). Without the bill – Armageddon. Alright, here is where I have a problem with the narrative.
Does the Clean Energy Provision Actually Delay the Adoption of Clean Energy?
Wind and solar electrical generation have grown at an annual compound rate of 16.5% each year over the past decade. And that rate of growth is accelerating. Last year (2020) renewables grew by 45%. In 2020, renewable energy accounted for 90% of all new energy generation worldwide.
The reason for this is that renewable energy is far and away the least expensive form of generation. Utilities make a lot more money from renewables than they do from coal, oil, and natural gas. And with fossil fuel prices skyrocketing – the stampede to renewables should accelerate even more.
So as I see it, this proposed "renewable energy" provision will pay utilities $150 billion to do what they would do anyway because of market forces. In fact, it incentivises them to slow down the adoption of renewables to ONLY 4% per year. A utility that was planning a major solar installation may decide to spread out the development over a longer term.
For example, if they planned a large solar installation that would grow their renewable energy portfolio 8% in one year, they would only be rewarded for 4% of that growth. But the next year, if they did nothing, they would receive a fine. The obvious choice would be to only build half of the project this year, delaying the other half by a year.
Another dynamic that this bill ignores completely is that the electric market is changing – and changing in dramatic ways. Over the coming decades, centralized utilities will play a less and less dominant role in our lives as more and more consumers (industry, businesses, and homes) install their own power systems.
Imagine if, during the 1980s, the government's plan to expand the Internet was to give billions of dollars to Bell Telephone. Three decades later our communication system looks nothing like the monopoly days of "Ma Bell." Three decades from now, most people will not know the name of their local electrical utility company.
So What are the Alternatives?
One alternative is the Manchin alternative. Just proclaim it a waste of money and refuse to fund it. History will let us know how well that works out.
Another dynamic to consider stems from the wonders of compound growth. Four percent renewable energy growth in 2029 is a lot more than 4% in 2021. So most of the benefits of this plan come late in the program. Perhaps it would be wiser to wait and see. If renewable energy growth continues at a double digit rate – well then the incentive money was not needed and would have been wasted. If the growth rate slacks off, well then that would be the time to push out incentives.
Another alternative would be to give the money directly to consumers to install solar. If you are determined to spend $150 billion – I think this would be money better spent (rather than increasing profits for utilities).
Currently the US has about 100 gigawatts (GW, or a billion watts) of solar capacity installed. To install solar at the residential level, it costs about $2.50 per watt. So if the government paid half the cost of installing solar on your home, $150 billion would install another 90 gigawatts, almost doubling the amount of solar installed in this country in one stroke and meeting the climate goals well before 2030.
That probably is not going to happen. I think the utility companies have better lobbyists.
Conclusion:
In our polarized political world, everything is simplified and painted in black and white, good and evil. Joe Manchin is evil because he is trying to destroy the planet. The clean energy provision in the Build Back Better bill is good, because it is going to reduce carbon emissions by 50% in 9 years. Neither is likely true – but that doesn't make a good story or feed my internal narrative.
About 8 years ago we, as a society, experienced the end of the age of fossil fuels and entered the age of renewables. No government program will change that. Renewable energy will soon become the dominant source of power on this planet. Why? Because it is far and away the cheapest source of power. Government can speed that up a bit or slow it down a bit – but they can't change it.
------------------------------
Jay Warmke
Owner
Blue Rock Station LLC
jay@bluerockstation.com
------------------------------