US DOE NREL plans up to 30% wind for Eastern US:

[joshcryer]

The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) is one of the largest regional wind integration studies to date. It was initiated in 2008 to examine the operational impact of up to 20-30% energy penetration of wind on the power system in the Eastern Interconnect of the United States (see study area map). This study was set up to answer questions that utilities, regional transmission operators, and planning organizations had about wind energy and transmission development in the east.

Previous studies focusing on specific states or utilities have laid the groundwork for wind integration studies (e.g., New York, 2005, and Minnesota, 2006).

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html

Just found this and wanted to share, looks quite good.

[joshcryer]

1. Comparison of carbon tax scenarios:

[kristopher]

3. Your graphs don't show wind.

The first shows an average of the annual price of electricity across the pricing points of the various grid operators under a set of assumptions (2).

The second shows the effect of that price in this unknown scenario (2) on the production of electricity by the technologies listed. You haven't provided a reference so we have no idea of where you obtained the graphs or the context for them.

[joshcryer]

4. It's the report in the link I posted in the OP:

PDF: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2010/ewits_final_report.pdf

And you are correct, the graphs are right next to each other, I misread them. They're on page 50 in Adobe.

[joshcryer]

8. CO2 tax does double cost of electricity:

[joshcryer]

9. Costs:

Caption: Although production-related costs constitute a large fraction of the total costs for all scenarios, these decline as the amount of wind generation increases. In scenarios 3 and 4, capital costs for wind generation increase because of slightly lower capacity factors and the much higher capital cost of offshore construction. Transmission costs are a relatively small fraction for all scenarios, with only a small absolute difference seen across the 20% cases. Wind integration costs are measurable but very small relative to the other factors.

None of the initial scenarios include any costs associated with carbon, which increases production costs significantly.

[NNadir]

2. They have done this practically every year for the last 3 decades.

Well, maybe only 30% of the years simce I've been alive, and I'm not young.

Renewable energy will be something other than a joke when it doesn't depend on continuous sooth saying.

If it has the word "plan" in it 40 years after the Altamont Pass wind plants were built and 20 years after most of them feel into big hunks of twisted metal, it is simply more and more and more and more and more wishful thinking.

[joshcryer]

5. It's clear you didn't read the report.

You're just trolling the thread. I wish you'd desist.

[NNadir]

13. I have read many thousands of "energy reports" in the last thirty years.

I kind of claim that I know now which ones are worth reading.

The 5,000th "wind percent by year XXXX" report that I read will not change the result.

I wish that wishful thinking would desist, but it doesn't. If you want to post on an informal blog, that is your right. It is my right, of course, to comment on the obvious sameness of it all.

When I came here in 2002, I was a supporter of wind energy. I have changed my mind. I did this after extensive reading, many thousands of papers. As it happens, I live in the Eastern United States and I don't want these greasy metal sticks in my sky. They are a nightmare of distributed energy, like the car, point source polluters that will prove intractable to clean up and I oppose them.

I don't consider myself uniformed on this subject, thank you.

[joshcryer]

7. Wind cheaper than nuclear

(page 67)

[NNadir]

14. Bullshit. This is a model, not a result.

I get really tired of people coming here and announcing credulously some forecast.

One thing that "wind will save us" advocates do continuously is ignore the economic and environmental (external) cost of back up of systems that have 25% capacity utilization as opposed to 90-100% capacity utilization.

I have yet to meet a single wind advocate on this website who has a serious understanding of the concept of spinning reserve.

I searched one of the PDF's in your link and found the word "spinning" appeared zero times in the "report."

Of course, I'm sure that GE supports wind power builds. They've built their entire company on exercises in planned obsolescence and consumerism.

[joshcryer]

15. Um, it's based on a reference case.

In case you weren't aware of that.

[joshcryer]

6. Transmission lines:

pp 39 of the "Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study"

[malakai2]

10. I'll read this at some point this week

Looks like it might be fairly in-depth. A couple questions, joshcryer, if you don't mind giving me a preview.

How do the authors deal with the cost of acquiring easements or land outright? On a related note, do they model a legal NIMBY factor, whereby some percentage of municipalities will establish setback requirements that foreclose on individual projects?

Do they factor in an increase in commodity prices for the construction of the towers and turbines themselves, apart from the transmission lines?

Are they factoring in any federal funding, or federal-state passthrough funds? The strings attached to those will get hairy and drive up prices with NEPA, ESA, and other legally mandated project reviews.

What are they assuming electricity use rates are going to do? Increase with increased production, decrease with conservation, stay at present levels, something else? It changes the target at which they're aiming.

Just a few quick thoughts.

[joshcryer]

11. Indeed, in the conclusion those things are discussed as "needing more research."

The results of this study pose some interesting policy and technology
development questions:
• Could the levels of transmission, including the Reference Case, ever be permitted and built, and if so, what is a realistic time frame?
• Could the level of offshore wind energy infrastructure be ramped up fast enough to meet the aggressive offshore wind assumption in the EWITS scenarios?
• Would a different renewable profile or transmission overlay arise from a bottom-up process with more stakeholders involved?
• How can states and the federal government best work together on regional transmission expansion and the massive development of onshore and offshore wind infrastructure?
• What is the best way for regional entities to collaborate to make sure wind is integrated into the bulk electrical grid optimally and reliably?
• What is the difference between applying a carbon price versus mandating and giving incentives for additional wind?

As far as federal support is concerned, they assume PTC (production tax credit) as it exists now in scenarios 1-2, about double in scenarios 3-4 (I should say I haven't given it a comprehensive read yet).

[kristopher]

12. The best source for that type of information is FERC

They have been fighting to move more control of transmission siting to their jurisdiction. The Supremes shot them down a couple of weeks ago but since transmission upgrade is a stated priority of the Obama admin, the issue will probably be specifically revisited in upcoming legislation.
If you want to know what that will probably look like, investigate what FERC wanted to do with the 2005 Energy Act.