Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumObama's Budget Nixes New Money For Program That Funded Solyndra
...The Energy Department "continues to conduct due diligence and is in active negotiations with a number of additional project sponsors," Reilly said. "It's important to point out here that, as of January 2012, over $24 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees have closed to support a diverse range of over 30 wind, solar, electric vehicles and other clean energy projects projected to fund more than 50,000 jobs."
But some environmental groups say Obama's budgetary shift is hugely significant because it means no new money for building nuclear power plants -- and they speculate that, at least in part, they have Solyndra to thank for the shift.
"The entire loan program has fallen into some disrepute on Capitol Hill ... because of Solyndra and some of the other renewable programs getting in trouble," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an information hub for organizations concerned with nuclear power. The administration "may have decided to cut their losses" and stop providing new funds to the program altogether.
To be sure, Obama's overall budget provides piles of new money for other clean energy programs. It includes a total of $27.2 billion for the Energy Department -- a 3.2 percent increase of what Congress enacted last year -- and $2.3 billion for research and development for energy efficiency, advanced vehicles and biofuels.
But that influx of new dollars ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/obama-budget-solyndra-program_n_1276605.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I've seen all sorts of Gen III+ nuclear shills citing Solyndra and being obtuse, so now they get their funds pulled. Idiots. The failure of alternate energy sources should never be cheered.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Don't say I didn't warn you!! In fact, kristopher has mocked my words in multiple postings.
First, the incentives for nuclear power plants, i.e. the loan guarantees; were authorized and appropriated under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. There's still money already approved there; so we don't need more in the current budget.
The new budget reflects the recent modifications in energy policy. The new policies conform to the reccomendations by the National Academy of Science and Engineering that the TOTAL of wind, solar, and other renewables should be not more than 15-20% of our electric power capacity.
The amount of hydroelectric will remain unchanged.
Therefore, the bulk of the "heavy lifting" in the forseeable future will be done, as it is now; by coal, gas, and nuclear. Of course, only one of the three is "low carbon" while the other two contribute substantially to global warming.
So for the indefinite future, the choice will be between coal, gas, and nuclear.
Some here are going to have to make a choice; are they pro-environment / anti-global warming; or are they anti-nuclear.
I think many of the pro-environment types are really anti-nuclear at the core, and just use pro-environment / anti-global warming as a cover for their anti-nuclear stance. Well now the choice is clear. Make your choice. Are you more pro-environment / anti-global warming, or are you a anti-nuke in sheep's clothing.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Regarding your NAS claim, which you first said was in a 2004 NAS report, I'll just repeat was has already been laid out for you:
There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007. The 2009 report doesn't make any recommendation couched in the "should" language you present, nor do the numbers you've offered reflect the potential they see in the relevant technologies.
Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH they tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."
They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."
The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."
They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.
Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275881#276952
The exchange covers posts 68 to 75 of that thread and ends when, after an attempt to tap dance, you were given the link to the study and asked to substantiate your claim: http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library
You are again invited to support your falsehood with text from the study you claim to be citing.
Here is what the NAS actually says:
This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library
There is no "should" or "not more than" used as in you claim in this or any other NAS report on renewable energy.
PamW
(1,825 posts)There is no 2004 report as the project was launched in 2007.
===========================
Kris,
I explained that!!! The National Academy of Sciences has issued MORE THAN ONE REPORT concerning energy in the USA.
About every 5 years or so; the NAS revisits the energy issue. The most recent study was begun in 2007. However, Kris doesn't understand that that was NOT the first and only time that NAS has issued a report on this subject. I've referred him to the report issued in 2004; but Kris keeps pretending that the 2004 report doesn't exist because of some of the things that are said in that report.
It's the same old game with Kris; if he agrees with a report, then it is "good science" regardless of what charlatans issued the report. If he disagrees with a report, then it is "bad science" even if it is issued by the most esteemed experts in the field. If he doesn't like what a report says, and there's no online version; then that report doesn't exist.
I told you before that not all the NAS reports are on the NAS ( nap ) website. GO TO A LIBRARY!!!
GEESH - if I reference a report from NAS from say 1975; do you think that it is online? NO!
Evidently you don't understand that NAS has issued THOUSANDS of reports; and the list you point to is NOT COMPREHENSIVE by any means.
Don't you also recall our discussion about the California Energy study. That report said that renewables could not go above 50% of the supply without some sort of large scale energy storage that we don't have.
Anybody knows that our electric demand does NOT go to zero at night - just think of all the refrigerators in home and businesses that have to be kept running to keep food from spoiling. Refrigeration is one of the biggest electricity users in the average home, and it demand 24/7 availability of energy. ( Yes - I know they cycle on/off - even at night ).
Land based solar, no matter what you do; doesn't give you energy at night.
We do NOT have large scale energy storage. THAT is why the NAS and the California study said that renewables and solar, in particular; can not meet the bulk of our energy needs.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Just provide a proper citation and you have substantiated your claim. With the evidence at hand it seems obvious you are blatantly misrepresenting the data in a way that brings ruin to the reputation of people who do it in the public sphere.
Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)
US Energy Policy: The Path Forward.
National Academy of Sciences
May 19, 2004
READ IT AND WEEP!!!
I NEVER want to hear you say again that I didn't give you the citation.
You can find it at the Library of any University that teaches science.
Additionally, the most recent NAS energy study also addresses the problems with having a large
proportion of our energy capacity in renewables. I've cited this section to Kris numerous times before
but he conveniently ignores it:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=4
However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity.
The main problem above is the storage technology; we don't have it. Kris, you might also educate yourself better on
this issue by viewing the PBS Nova science program on energy from 2009 with Dr. Steven Chu saying the biggest
problem of using more wind and solar is the storage issue echoing the 2004 National Academy Study:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/energy-secretary-chu.html
"If we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy,
we need to solve the energy-storage problem."
As Dr Chu states; the energy storage problem is NOT solved, and until you do that,
solar, wind, and other renewables are going to be LESS THAN 30% of the mix.
PamW
All of the documents published by NAS are searchable on the NAS site:
http://www.nap.edu/
A very, very few might not be available for PDF download, but ALL of the work is online. Your paper US Energy Policy: The Path Forward. National Academy of Sciences May 19, 2004 doesn't exist nor is it a reference used in any other paper anywhere.
Most people's behavior like this is moderated by a sense of shame that you seem to be totally missing.
Your 2010 quote says the same as I wrote above. It is a complete refutation of the false claim you keep making. The quotes you selected are put into clearer language in the "Report Briefing" prepared by the authors:
From 1997 to 2006, the wind power industry experienced a 20 percent compound annual growth rate. Wind turbine technology is fairly mature and turbines are able to produce the amount of energy used in their manufacturing and installation in less than half a year. This “energy payback period” is only expected to improve as turbines’ towers and rotors become larger and more efficient. Without any radically new technology, wind power has the potential to supply 10 to 20 percent of electricity demand by 2030. Electricity from Renewable Sources determined that a U.S. Department of Energy scenario involving installation of 300 GW of wind capacity by 2030 (which would be sufficient to provide 20 percent of total electricity generation) would be possible but very challenging. Such a scenario would require a huge expansion of manufacturing, materials, and installation, and require up to $100 billion in capital costs and transmission upgrades more than a no-new-wind scenario. However, it would provide 140,000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 800 million tons/year.
Solar Power
There are two main types of solar power generation: photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power. In PV solar, sunlight strikes the surface of a cell made of a light absorbing material. These materials include silicon or thin films of inorganic materials, such as cadmium telluride, that have absorption properties well matched to capture the solar spectrum. PV solar is useful for providing power at times of peak usage and has a very high resource potential in a number of U.S. regions. In the United States, about 22 percent of residential and 65 percent of commercial rooftop space is appropriate for PV cells. Based on available rooftops alone, PV could potentially supply more electricity than the United States consumed in 2008. Worldwide production of PV modules is increasing rapidly, but from a very small base.
Electricity from Renewable Sources describes one scenario involving installation of 100 to 200 GW of PV capacity (which would be sufficient to meet 10 to 15 percent of total electricity usage) by 2030 that would be very expensive but possible. It would also create 120,000 to 260,000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 70 to 100 million tons per year. Unfortunately, the production of solar cells is currently very expensive; less expensive thin-film cells exist but are less efficient. Also, because its manufacturing is extremely energy intensive, PV has the longest energy payback period (1 to 7.5 years) of any renewable source.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/energysite/documents/webpage/energy_054518.pdf
The quoted portion is on the first and second pages.
The quote you provided from Chu is incomplete and is far from support for your assertion that there is a hard upper limit to how much renewables can contribute.
Chu: No, it's not there yet. We need to solve the problem of energy distribution and energy storage before renewables becomes, for example, 50 percent of the base load electricity. There's no way it can become 50 percent until we have a mass-energy storage system or a huge international or national distribution system.
Yet aren't you pro-renewables?
I am pro-renewables. Absolutely, because I think we can solve these technological problems. I think we can solve them in one or two decades.
California currently buys about 30 percent of its electricity from coal-generated plants. We know this. And California's new regulations want to wean us away from this. We need to do it. But if we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy, we need to solve the energy-storage problem.
His understanding of energy systems in 2009, when this interview was done, was not as good as it should have been. He is overstating the role of storage in a grid and the degree to which deploying storage is a "problem". I doubt he would make the same statement today.
PamW
(1,825 posts)His understanding of energy systems in 2009, when this interview was done, was not as good as it should have been. He is overstating the role of storage in a grid and the degree to which deploying storage is a "problem". I doubt he would make the same statement today.
---------------------------------
Kris, BALONEY!!!!
The National Academy has been doing studies for decades before the Internet; and NOT all the works are online and searchable. A quick visit to the LIBRARY - which you REFUSE to do would show that.
Dr. Chu is a Nobel Prize winner in Physics and you say his knowledge "was not as good as it should have been" in this area.
His knowledge is limited compared to yours???
GADS - don't make me laugh.
Before he became Secretary of Energy; he was the Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab; one of the premiere labs working on the energy issue, including renewables and the need for storage systems for them.
A Nobel Laureate in Physics who is the Director of a National Lab working on the problem; and you claim his knowledge wasn't good.
That's about as ridiculous as thinking ( term used loosely ) that all the NAS reports are online.
You must really live in a reality distortion field.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)June 2, 2011 · by Barb Murphy
The National Academies—National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council—are committed to distributing their reports to as wide an audience as possible. Since 1994 we have offered “Read for Free” options for almost all our titles.In addition, we have been offering free downloads of most of our titles to everyone and of all titles to readers in the developing world. We are now going one step further. Effective June 2nd, PDFs of reports that are currently for sale on the National Academies Press (NAP) Website and PDFs associated with future reports* will be offered free of charge to all Web visitors.
For more than 140 years, the NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. Like no other collection of organizations, the Academies enlist the nation’s foremost scientists, engineers, health professionals, and other experts to address the scientific and technical aspects of society’s most pressing problems. The results of their work are authoritative and independent studies published by the National Academies Press.
NAP produces more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the best-informed views on important issues.
We invite you to visit the NAP homepage and experience the new opportunities available to access our publications. There you can sign up for MyNAP, a new way for us to deliver all of our content for free to loyal subscribers like you and to reward you with exclusive offers and discounts on our printed books. This enhancement to our free downloads means that we can reach out even further to inform government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge.
...
http://notes.nap.edu/2011/06/02/more-than-4000-national-academies-press-pdfs-now-available-to-download-for-free/
The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the most authoritative views on important issues in science and health policy. The institutions represented by the NAP are unique in that they attract the nation’s leading experts in every field to serve on their award-wining panels and committees. The nation turns to the work of NAP for definitive information on everything from space science to animal nutrition.
Digital (PDF) Content
We offer more than 4,000 titles in PDF format. All of these PDFs can be downloaded for free by the chapter or the entire book*. Our frequently asked questions guide answers questions about accessing our digital content.
...
*There are a small number of reports that never had PDF files and therefore, those reports are not available for download. In addition, part of the series, "Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals" are not available in PDF and future titles in this series will also not have PDFs associated with them.
http://www.nap.edu/about.html
If it was about renewable energy in 2004, it would be accessible in this library.
Find a published paper that cites the report you claim exists. I looked and there were none.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Since 1994 we have offered “Read for Free” options for almost all our titles
===============================-=\
Kris, your poor reading comprehension skills are at play again. You evidently MISSED a word in the above.
Let me point out the word in the following
Since 1994 we have offered “Read for Free” options for almost all our titles
Kris do you understand the meaning of the word "almost". I have a hint for you.
"Almost" is NOT a synonym for "ALL".
The first line tells you that they do NOT have ALL the publications. They have "almost all" but NOT all.
If you haven't found a citation; then you haven't looked enough. I have my paper-bound copy of the report
right here on my desk. As the above details, it depends on who did the study originally and how they prepared the report.
If they didn't produce a PDF; then the work may not be available online.
We've had the NAS for decades; and they've been churning out 200+ publications for decades. There are a LOT more
than 4,000 NAS publications; but you didn't do the math.
Kris - turn off the computer and do what real scholars have done for years - go to a LIBRARY!
However, we don't really need the NAS to decide the central question for us, do we?
1) We use electric power 24 hours per day. Electric power use doesn't go to zero when the sun sets. We light our cities and use electricity to heat our homes ( running the fans ) and the heat pumps in our refrigerators.
2) Solar power is USELESS after the sun goes down. You don't get any more energy when the panels can't see the sun.
3) Therefore a power system that was 100% or 90% solar can't meet the demand alone without storage.
4) One could use wind turbines at night; but if you have that much wind power - why not use it 24 hours a day and save the cost of the unreliable solar?
5) Even wind power is NOT "dispatchable" - that is you can't count on it to high reliability. The capacity factor of wind turbines is no where near even 90% ( more like 20% to 40% ). So you can't count on the wind either.
6) Even if you network solar and wind. Solar goes down at night for the entire nation; and even with wind, we have times where a large high sets in over the nation, and we have basically stagnant air. I live near a wind farm, and I don't see the blades turning all the time.
7) That means you have to STORE energy at times when you have it; to use it when the sun isn't shining and the wind is not blowing. We don't have large scale storage.
Now - I numbered the points above - tell me where you fall off the trolley.
It was also very self-serving of you to say that Dr. Chu wasn't an expert in renewables in 2009. BOY did you ever put your foot in it that time.
Dr. Chu was the Director of Lawrence Berkeley, one of the leading labs, if not THE leading lab in renewables.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)Q: Is California ready to turn to renewable energy—wind, solar, geothermal—to provide base load electrical power?
Chu: No, it's not there yet. We need to solve the problem of energy distribution and energy storage before renewables becomes, for example, 50 percent of the base load electricity. There's no way it can become 50 percent until we have a mass-energy storage system or a huge international or national distribution system.
===============================
This is what Chu said in 2009, and Chu would say the same today. This is what I say also - I agree with the above 100%.
You can't have renewables >50% if you either can't store the power, or you can't get power from the other side of the world. NEITHER one can we do today - so for the forseeable future; renewables are LIMITED to <50%. That doesn't mean we don't work on it. However, we have been working on it for decades already.
This is where your lack of scientific understanding limits your understanding of the entire process. Like your lack of understanding of the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You "think" that the 2nd Law isn't a big barrier, that we can "engineer" our way around it. That is WRONG, and if you understood science, you'd know it was wrong. We don't "engineer" our way around Laws of Physics; we have to obey them.
Otherwise, we could have all the energy we want; we just "engineer" our way around the Law of Conservation of Energy.
We don't need a supply of energy to tap; we'll just engineer things so that we make energy out of absolute nothing. Since nothing is our fuel source, and the song lyricists have told us for years that we have plenty of nothing, then we can have all the energy we want; all made out of nothing.
Of course, any intelligent reader here knows that is impossible. Well bypassing the 2nd Law and the other Laws of Physics that you eschew when I bring them up; is just as impossible.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)There is no "should" or "not more than" used as in you claim in this or any other NAS report on renewable energy.
===========================
Sure there is. The NAS makes reccomendations. They don't just give you a set of facts and say make your own conclusion.
Anybody can get the facts. However, NAS has people who can do the analysis to turn those facts into meaningful reccomendations for policy. That is why we have the NAS in the first place; to make reccomendations. That's their business.
They reccomended that puny little, only sometimes available, expensive energy sources like PV solar should NOT be the linchpin of our entire energy supply sector. Solar just plain can't handle the heavy lifting.
BTW I told you that my colleagues and I would get the renewable energy budget trashed; and you didn't believe me.
Just keep up what you are doing; calling me a liar as you did above; and every time you do; I'll fight even harder to drive down that solar energy budget. It's your choice; keep doing what you're doing and the solar companies will have to subsidize the Government instead of the other way around, when I get through.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Even the 2009 report states the 20% limit:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258
A grid can support some intermittent resources without electricity storage if sufficient excess capacity is available to maintain resource adequacy. As described below and in Chapter 7, in many cases the amount of intermittent renewable resources that can be supported is approximately 20 percent, particularly for utilities that rely primarily on hydropower or natural-gas-fired generation. Hydropower and natural-gas-fired plants can ramp levels of generation up or down fairly rapidly, and are able to incorporate a higher fraction of renewables than utilities that rely on nuclear and coal-fired generation, which cannot ramp up or down quickly.
Even for the BEST case, which is for utilities with a lot of hydro and gas which can ramp up/down quickly; the NAS study states that the amount of intermittent renewables that can be supported is approximately 20%.
I WIN, Kris!!!
I don't need to get you to read the 2004 report or the 1992 report - the 2009 that you are so enthralled with says it too!!
The NAS states above; in the BEST case in which you have hydro / gas that can ramp up / down quickly; the amount of renewables that can be supported without storage is about 20%!!
That's what I've been saying all along!!! If you go 100% or 90% or what-ever ill-conceived dream that Kris has; you won't have enough reserve in the other more reliable plants to compensate for the intermittent nature of renewables.
VICTORY!! VICTORY!!! Kris LOSES again!! Science WINS again!!!
PamW
Stay classy.
Meanwhile I'm with Josh: "The failure of alternate energy sources should never be cheered." I don't see why even the most diehard fans of nuclear energy prefer less solar, when the one thing we can all presumably agree is that we need to cut fossil fuel use. Installed wind and solar is SO far from reaching any level where intermittency is a severe constraint that arguing whether the practical maximum is 20%, 50%, 90% or 100% is quite pointless.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Stay classy.
===========
I'm sick and tired of Kris and his LIES, FABRICATIONS, and IGNORANCE.
I cite Laws of Physics as my verification and he disputes them; when he obviously is not trained in the sciences and I have a PhD from MIT.
He calls me a liar when he can't find a paper I cite; when he's just too lazy to go to a good library, because contrary to his claims NOT everything is online.
He makes up self-serving fabrication out of whole cloth without anything to substantiate them.
His metric for the authenticity of a source is whether he agrees with it or not.
Kris is the ultimate archetype of poor scholarship!!!
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)While the NAS site is the definitive source to establish whether this paper exists, since you want to continue your pretense and claim it only listed at academic libraries, then let's call your bluff on that point also:
http://libraries.mit.edu/esl/science/
That is an online link to MIT's engineering and science libraries. Your supposed document doesn't exist their either. A final point about the National Academy Press listings. Just because the document isn't available by PDF doesn't mean it isn't listed in their database. All of their work is there.
Now let's move to the new distraction you are trying to manufacture. The NAS paper supports what I've said, not what you've claimed. Your claim is that there is hard-limit, maximum possible contribution to the grid by renewables of 15-20%. Here are your own words:
The two underlined portions are the false statements in this claim. There is no "should" nor do they say that we need 80-85% "dependable" energy sources. What they wrote is the current grid configuration can accommodate 20%. They set no hard limit on potential renewable penetration nor do they specify the "need" for any percentage of "dependable" energy sources.
In fact, if you go to the link you provided above http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258 and look to the left you'll see a link titled "PDF report brief". This document is their plain language summary of the original paper "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments (2010)"
Here is the link to the summary:
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/energysite/documents/webpage/energy_054518.pdf
From the level of deployment now until the level expected in 2020, there are no technological issues constraining deployment of wind, solar, conventional geothermal, and biopower technologies. However, a substantial fraction of new renewable electricity generation capacity would come from intermittent (wind and solar) and/or distant sources. As a result, increases in transmission capacity and other grid improvements are critical for significant penetration of renewable electricity sources. Co-location of renewable energy generation with fast-responding fossil fuel-fired generation, such as natural gas combustion turbines, can increase consistency and the value of building transmission lines. Further, for renewable power to produce more than 20 percent of total power generation, many local and regional electrical systems would require storage technologies to integrate these intermittent resources. Options include pumped hydropower, batteries, compressed air energy storage, or conversion of excess generated electricity to chemical fuels. Achieving a predominant (i.e., more than 50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration would require storage technologies, as well as other scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity....
Now, is the NAS the final word on this? No they are not. Their work often lags current research in rapidly evolving fields like renewable integration where direct observation of real world events precedes the academic work the NAS relies on. In this case the worlds leading experts on the integration of variable resources into the grid have this to say:
The fact that “the wind doesn’t always blow” is often used to suggest the need for dedicated energy storage to handle fluctuations in the generation of wind power. Such viewpoints, however, ignore the realities of both grid operation and the performance of a large, spatially diverse wind-generation resource. Historically, all other variation (for example, that due to system loads, generation-commitment and dispatch changes, and network topology changes) has been handled systemically. This is because the diversity of need leads to much lower costs when variability is aggregated before being balanced.
Storage is almost never “coupled” with any single energy source—it is most economic when operated to maximize the economic benefit to an entire system. Storage is nearly always beneficial to the grid, but this benefit must be weighed against its cost. With more than 26 GW of wind power currently operating in the United States and more than 65 GW of wind energy operating in Europe (as of the date of this writing), no additional storage has been added to the systems to balance wind. Storage has value in a system without wind, which is the reason why about 20 GW of pumped hydro storage was built in the United States and 100 GW was built worldwide, decades before wind and solar energy were considered as viable electricity generation technologies. Additional wind could increase the value of energy storage in the grid as a whole, but storage would continue to provide its services to the grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in the net demand, not just wind.
...
In a system with less base load and more flexible generation, the value of storage is relatively insensitive to the wind penetration. Figure 8 shows that storage still has value with no wind on the system, but there is a very slight increase in the value of storage even at a wind-penetration rate of 40% (energy). An across-the-board decrease in market prices reduces the incentives for a unit with high fixed costs and low variable costs (e.g., coal or nuclear) to be built in the first place. This means that in a high-wind future, fewer low-variable-cost units will be built. This reduces the amount of time that low-variable-cost units are on the margin and also reduces the value of storage relative to the “near-term” value with the same amount of wind.
The question of whether wind needs storage ultimately comes down to economic costs and benefits. More than a dozen studies analyzing the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind come to varying conclusions, but the most significant is that integration costs are moderate, even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas. Overall, these studies imply that the added cost of integrating wind over the next decade is far less than the cost of dedicated energy storage, and that the cost can potentially be reduced by the use of advanced wind-forecasting techniques.
You can download the full document by clicking the pdf link below and you'll be able to see figure 7 and the deleted paragraph refering to fig 7. It is an excellent explanation of how
Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE
By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
If you download it you'll find that they also debunk the claim that variable resources (specifically wind in this case) requires large amounts of backup generation.
PamW
(1,825 posts)What they wrote is the current grid configuration can accommodate 20%. They set no hard limit on potential renewable penetration nor do they specify the "need" for any percentage of "dependable" energy sources.
==========================================
Kris - WRONG agaiin, and disengenuous. Why do you persist in LYING that there is no 2004 nor 1992 report. Do you think that the readers of this forum are so unintelligent as to believe that 2009 was the first and only time the NAS reported on energy?
As to my words you quoted, I stand behind them. The NAS says without storage that the eletrical grid can have only 20% of unreliable, intermittent energy from renewables. "Can accommodate" is analogous to "should". You physically "could" have more; but the grid with be unreliable. Therefore, I said "should"; and, if anything" the NAS's verbiage is stronger than my "should".
The only way you "can accommodate" that 20% UNRELIABLE renewables is to have 80% RELIABLE that can fill in the gaps from UNRELIABLE renewables. Evidently you don't understand that the grid HAS to balance each and every microsecond or it fails. You can't say; my solar array lost power because a cloud blocked the sun; but I'll make up for it in 10 seconds when the cloud has moved. NO - unless you have storage to backfill; your solar array has to rely on the 80% RELIABLE - the industry calls it "dispatchable" - power plants. Solar and wind are NOT "dispatchable". Hydro, fossil fuels, and nuclear ARE "dispatchable".
You are also in SERIOUS ERROR that the NAS is behind the curve or "lags current research". NO - that's just another of your self-serving fabrications. The NAS goes out to find what the current state of the art is.
As far as legitimate scientists like myself; the NAS very much is the last word.
The charlatans that wrote the papers that you cite are just as self-serving in attempting to cover-up their deficiencies.\
Any body knows that the sun doesn't shine at night; and the wind doesn't always blow. For those times, solar and wind energy HAVE to have some backup either by storage or other "dispatchable" power plants; all the protestations by self-serving papers you cite, notwithstanding.
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 27, 2012, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)
See thread above for details.
As for the self serving charlatans...
Here is the first name on the list. All of the others are similarly qualified. They are arguably the world's leading experts on the topic and they published this special article in a world famous journal specifically to debunk the "myths" you subscribe to.
Principal Analyst National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Ph.D. Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder
M.A. Economics, University of Colorado, Denver
B.A. Mathematics, Philosophy, Albion College
Michael came to NREL's wind energy program in 1992 and is now principal researcher in the Transmission and Grid Integration Group at NREL. He has worked on numerous operational and planning issues related to the integration of wind and solar energy into the bulk power system. He has published more than 140 technical reports, journal articles, and book chapters. He participates on the leadership team for the North American Electric Reliability Corporation's Variable Generation Task Force, co-chairing the probabilistic methods working group; the Variable Generation Subcommittee for the Western Electric Coordinating Council; and the International Energy Agency Task 25: Design and Operation of Power Systems with Large Amounts of Wind Energy. Michael has served on numerous technical review committees for wind integration studies, provided testimony at public utility commission hearings and workshop presentations, and served on the Wind Task Force for the Western Governors' Association Clean and Diverse Energy project. Among several current projects is an evaluation of the operating reserve impacts of the proposed Energy Imbalance Market in the Western Interconnection.
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/research_staff_bios.html
ETA info on paper being discussed:
Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE
By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
PamW
(1,825 posts)Legitimate scientists do not fabricate data like you do.
===============================
Kris,
I DO NOT FABRICATE!!! Those are just your VACUOUS claims!! You said I fabricated that 20% figure,
and THERE IT IS in the National Academy report - so you were PROVED WRONG. I didn't fabricate that
20% figure; it comes right from the National Academy.
Also - did you ever think how I knew that the figure was 20% BEFORE I found it in the 2009 NAS report?
I've been quoting that 20% ( to your consternation ) for a long time; probably even BEFORE the 2009 NAS report was published.
So how did I know about the 20% BEFORE the 2009 NAS report was published, or before I found it in the 2009 report?
Because I read it in PREVIOUS National Academy reports - which you claim don't exist because you never went to the library to find them.
Kris; wind power and solar power are intermittent. Anyone that claims that these intermittent power sources don't need to be backed-up by either storage or spinning-reserve is just plain WRONG, regardless of their background is.
I suspect that the scientist Michael Milligan is NOT claiming that these sources don't need backup. He probably said something that
you interpreted means they don't need backup. The lack of understanding is more likely on your part than on Milligans.
Shall we look at the quote you cite above:
More than a dozen studies analyzing the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind come to varying conclusions, but the most significant is that integration costs are moderate, even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas.
The above quote says that as long as wind power is LESS than 20% in penetration ( which is also the NAS number ) then wind does NOT need storage. That's right, because if you limit wind to 20%; then the dispatchable power plants, the nuclear, coal, gas, hydro; can "cover" for the wind system. So you don't need storage. But it also means you can NOT go above 20% with wind.
The need for storage comes if you want wind to go above 20% in penetration. That's what you want isn't it?
The author is giving you a choice, based on cost:
1) Wind less than 20% and no storage.
OR
2) Wind greater than 20% but you must have storage.
These are exclusive. The problem with you is you look at this either/or choice as part of a menu from a smorgasboard restaurant ( one from column A, one from column B...)
You want "no storage" from scenario 1) and you want Wind greater than 20% from scenario 2).
The whole point of the above is that it is an either / or choice; you can't mix and match.
As always, the explanation comes down to your poor interpretation of what the scientists write.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)nor do they specify the "need" for any percentage of "dependable" energy sources.
==================================================
They sure do specify the need for "dependable" energy sources:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=259
"Dispatchable resources, typically natural-gas-fired units and sometimes hydropower, and interruptible demand are used to compensate for the lack of dispatchable resources when scheduled wind or other capacity diminishes."
Evidently you don't know the vocabulary of the industry. In the electric power industry, a "dispatchable" power source is one that you have "at your command", in other words, it is "dependable". The "dispatchable" resource delivers power on command. Nuclear, gas, coal, hydro are all "dispatchable" resources since they can be commanded.
Wind / solar are not dispatchable. You can't command either wind nor solar to give you energy on command; they are held hostage to the whims of Mother Nature - they are "unreliable".
So when the power from the unreliable solar and unreliable wind decreases due to the whims of Mother Nature; the utility has to have enough extra capacity in the power sources it CAN command to compensate for the unreliability of the renewables.
It's really, really simple. I don't know why you continue to go through all these prevarications to attempt to turn a "sow's ear" into a "silk purse".
PamW
kristopher
(29,798 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- The US Federal Government is making another pitch for business-tax reform, and within that thrust it is underscoring its support for renewable energy.
The proposed adjustments in the Framework for Business Tax Reform incorporate five themes, including lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, and to 25 percent for manufacturing "and even lower for advanced manufacturing activities." The current Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit's lower option of 14 percent rate in excess of a base amount would be hiked to 17 percent and made permanent.
For renewable energy sectors, the key part of the President's proposal also includes making the temporary tax credits for renewable energy production permanent -- and making it refundable. Doing so will "provide a strong, consistent incentive to encourage investments in renewable energy technologies," according to the Treasury Department. (Here's the press release and full PDF of the proposed business tax reforms.)
This Framework recognizes that, as we expand manufacturing in the United States, the tax code should encourage doing so in way that is sustainable and that puts the United States in the lead in manufacturing the clean energy technologies of the future. This will create jobs here at home and can also have important spillover benefits. Moving toward a clean energy economy will reduce air and water pollution and enhance our national security by reducing dependence on oil. Cleaner energy will play a crucial role in slowing global climate change, meeting the President's goal of producing 80 percent of our nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035.
...
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/obama-proposes-tax-reform-making-renewables-credits-permanent?cmpid=WNL-Friday-February24-2012
