Western US grid could support 35% renewable energy, says NREL

[jpak]

http://www.brighterenergy.org/10808/news/wind/western-us-grid-could-support-35-renewable-energy-says-nrel/

The electricity grid in the western United States could support up to 35% of wind and solar power by 2017, without extensive additional infrastructure, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

The US Department of Energy’s research agency issued a study that said the target was “technically feasible” – but would require key changes in how the electricity network is operated in the mountain and southwest states.

Up to 30% wind energy and 5% solar energy penetration could be achieved on the grid with a better coordination of utilities’ distribution activities across a much wider geographic area, the research suggested.

It also recommends operating a schedule of generation or sales more frequent that the current hourly system.

<more>

[kristopher]

1. "would require key changes in how the electricity network is operated"

That is music to my ears. The move away from centralized thermal generation cannot happen fast enough...

[JohnWxy]

2. very interesting. This would require growth rates exceeding what I discussed here in a 'what if'

scenario: (obviously, NREL's study is "unrealistic" :) ).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243540&mesg_id=244932



BTW, recommended.

[NNadir]

3. Well, we always have "could" in these so called "renewable energy" exercises, never IS.

Of course even if this were more than dumb wishful thinking, I note, with due disgust, that in the mind of our resident ant-nukes, this means entrenching the 65% from dangerous fossil fuels, including the removed mountain tops, the seas, inlets and gulfs layered with oil, the waste dumped indiscriminately into the atmosphere.

Climate change isn't "could." It's "IS."

We know why we hear these platitudes too.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory+B.+Lovins">Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

The idea is to keep issuing platitudes to make the business of BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, etc, etc, etc, secure through the avenue of complacency.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. No in this case, it IS. And has been for sometime.

But apparently Hydroelectric is the kid with the malformed head you keep in the closet under the stairs and don't talk about.

[Statistical]

4. Eastern US could support up to 20% renewable energy.

http://www.brighterenergy.org/4155/news/wind/federal-report-claims-20-wind-power-penetration-feasible/

Other than a single "anti-renewable energy in all forms" poster this is something many here have said.

Once again other than a single poster nobody has said renewable won't be a part of future energy landscape just that it won't be all of future generation.
We aren't going to 100% renewable energy without a massive infrastructure upgrade. Hell we aren't even going to 40% without spending hundreds of billions of HVDC long distance lines.

10% renewables, 20% renewable, even 30% renewable (in portions of the country) fine. Now what about the other 70%+?

[jpak]

5. Then that's what is needed and must be funded

and it will be cheaper in the long run than maintaining the US nuclear fuel cycle

yup!

[kristopher]

6. Your link doesn't in any way discuss MAXIMUM renewable potential

Your link doesn't in any way discuss MAXIMUM renewable potential. The other 70% you ask about is completely doable with renewables also - and it can be done faster and cheaper with renewables than with nuclear.

"...coal-fired generation is eliminated by 2050 and nuclear generation is reduced by over one quarter"
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf
Beyond Business as Usual: Investigating a Future without Coal and Nuclear Power in the U.S.
May 11, 2010
Prepared for the Civil Society Institute

INTRODUCTION
The electric power industry in the U.S. is at a crossroads. Many of the nation’s generating plants are over forty years old and in need of upgrades to continue operating efficiently. The transmission grid is also in need of reinforcement and expansion. At the same time, the risks associated with climate change are forcing us to consider quantum shifts in the way we generate and use electricity.

Some proposals to address climate change assume that because coal is relatively abundant in the U.S., it must play a key role in our electricity future. Typically, these proposals include massive investment to develop technologies to decarbonize coal and/or remove CO2 from coal combustion gases. Similarly, many proposals assume that because nuclear generation does not emit CO2 directly, additional nuclear plants must be a part of the solution. This assumption has led to new subsidies and large government loan guarantees designed to revive the U.S. nuclear industry.

However, coal and nuclear power come at a high price. New rules enacted to protect public health will require billions of dollars in new emission control equipment at old coal-fired plants. These controls would reduce SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions but would do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. The environmental impacts of mining coal are massive and well documented, and the recent tragedy in West Virginia has brought attention back to the health and safety risks of mining. Mountain top removal presents different risks and costs to communities where it is employed. Coal ash wastes present additional costs and risks to communities around the country. Nuclear power produces high-level radioactive waste, and the nation still has not established a long term repository for that waste. For the indefinite future, the waste will be stored throughout the country at the power plants themselves. The risk of accidents would also increase with additional nuclear plants, and while the nuclear industry assures us that these risks are vanishingly small, history argues that they are not.

This study challenges the assumptions that coal and nuclear power must be key parts of our response to climate change. We investigate a scenario in which the country transitions away from coal and nuclear power and toward more efficient electricity use and renewable energy sources. Specifically, coal-fired generation is eliminated by 2050 and nuclear generation is reduced by over one quarter. We perform a simple and transparent analysis of the costs of this strategy relative to a “business as usual” scenario, which includes expanded use of coal and nuclear energy. We also estimate the reductions in air emissions and water use that would result from this strategy. We do not quantify other benefits of the strategy, such as reduced solid waste from coal and nuclear plants or reduced environmental impacts from mining.

The goal of the study is to provide a highly transparent and objective analysis of the cost of moving away from coal and nuclear energy and toward efficiency and renewables. Toward this end, we have used cost data from actual recent projects wherever possible rather than from researchers’ estimates or industry targets. We include in our analysis the costs of integrating large amounts of variable generation into the nation’s power system and the cost of new transmission needed to deliver renewable energy to load centers. The study is a high-level view of a nationwide strategy, and it is designed to help identify areas where more detailed analysis is needed.

This work is motivated by a simple realization. The need to reduce CO2 emissions will force a major retooling of the electric industry. If we retool around coal and nuclear energy, we will exacerbate a number of environmental, health, and safety problems. If we retool with efficiency and renewable energy, we will largely eliminate those problems. Moreover, the traditional arguments against renewable energy are no longer valid. Energy efficiency and several renewable technologies now cost less than new coal and nuclear plants in terms of direct costs—ignoring the externalized costs of coal and nuclear energy. Additionally, efficiency and renewables are already in commercial operation, so the technology development and commercialization challenge of retooling with these technologies appears smaller than the challenge of developing low-carbon coal technologies and a new fleet of nuclear plants.

Moreover, there is no rush to build additional capacity. Surplus generating capacity in every region of the country provides us the time to carefully and systematically increase investment in renewables and energy efficiency while we reduce investment in coal-fired and nuclear power.

Section 2 of this report outlines the methodology and key assumptions. Section 3 presents the results for the U.S. as a whole, and Section 4 presents results on the regional level. Section 5 summarizes our conclusions. Appendix A describes our methodology in greater detail, and Appendix B describes our assumptions about the cost and performance of technologies in the Transition Scenario. Appendix C shows presents data in tabular form from selected charts in the report.

Cooper looks at costs:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

Lovins examines nuclear claims:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

Offshore wind power in the East is a HUGE resource in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the heaviest demand.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract

[FBaggins]

9. .

[bananas]

7. No - that should be "Eastern US could support at least 30% wind by 2024"

They analyzed four scenarios: 3 scenarios of 20% wind by 2024, and 1 scenario of 30% wind by 2024,
and found that the grid could support all scenarios.
That doesn't mean renewables can't provide "all of future generation" as you falsely claim,
the fact is that renewables can provide "all of future generation" and that should be our long-term goal
(although this is not discussed in the report - this report deals only with those 4 scenarios).

The report webpage is http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html
From pages 27-28 of the report:

In general, though, the study shows the following:
• High penetrations of wind generation—20% to 30% of the electrical
energy requirements of the Eastern Interconnection—are technically
feasible with significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure.
• New transmission will be required for all the future wind scenarios in
the Eastern Interconnection, including the Reference Case. Planning for
this transmission, then, is imperative because it takes longer to build new
transmission capacity than it does to build new wind plants.
• Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment (shutting
down) of wind generation would be required for all the 20% scenarios.
• Interconnection-wide costs for integrating large amounts of wind
generation are manageable with large regional operating pools and
significant market, tariff, and operational changes.
• Transmission helps reduce the impacts of the variability of the wind,
which reduces wind integration costs, increases reliability of the electrical
grid, and helps make more efficient use of the available generation
resources. Although costs for aggressive expansions of the existing
grid are significant, they make up a relatively small portion of the total
annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied.
• Carbon emission reductions in the three 20% wind scenarios do not vary
by much, indicating that wind displaces coal in all scenarios and that
coal generation is not significantly exported from the Midwest to the
eastern United States; carbon emissions are reduced at an increased rate
in the 30% wind scenario as more gas generation is used to accommodate
wind variability. Wind generation displaces carbon-based fuels, directly
reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Emissions continue to decline
as more wind is added to the supply picture. Increasing the cost of carbon
in the analysis results in higher total production costs.

Even Exelon CEO John Rowe admitted that wind is cheaper than nuclear and that new nuclear does not make economic sense for this decade. Reducing emissions this decade is crucial - we have to build as much wind as possible as soon as possible. That goes for other renewables, too: solar PV will reach grid-parity this decade. New nuclear is not needed at all, and certainly not this decade. There is no good reason to advocate new nuclear.

[Statistical]

8. Did you read the OP and then what you just wrote.

The OP stated (correctly) that the Western grids can support about 35% wind/solar WITHOUT significant transmission upgrades.

The link I provided stated (correctly) that the Eastern grids can support about 20% wind/solar WITHOUT significant transmission upgrades.


From your quote:
High penetrations of wind generation—20% to 30% of the electrical
energy requirements of the Eastern Interconnection—are technically
feasible with SIGNIFICANT expansion of the transmission infrastructure.


Of course you are going to include these hundred billion dollar significant expansion costs to the lifecycle cost of wind right? To not do so would be intellectually dishonest. Nuclear power has the advantage of high energy density and can easily replace coal, natural, oil thermal plants using existing infrastructure. The grid doesn't need to be radically changed to replace a pair of 1 GW coal plants with a pair of 1 GW reactors.

[bananas]

10. Well...

You (incorrectly) wrote:

The link I provided stated (correctly) that the Eastern grids can support about 20% wind/solar WITHOUT significant transmission upgrades.

No, the article you linked says:

http://www.brighterenergy.org/4155/news/wind/federal-report-claims-20-wind-power-penetration-feasible

However, the analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory warned that “significant” expansion and upgrades to the grid in the eastern US would be needed to support such a scenario.

You wrote:

Of course you are going to include these hundred billion dollar significant expansion costs to the lifecycle cost of wind right?

The part of the report I quoted says:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=248810&mesg_id=248933

Although costs for aggressive expansions of the existing
grid are significant, they make up a relatively small portion of the total
annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied.

So your concern about the cost of transmission upgrades is irrelevant.

As I said in my previous post:
Even Exelon CEO John Rowe admitted that wind is cheaper than nuclear and that new nuclear does not make economic sense for this decade. Reducing emissions this decade is crucial - we have to build as much wind as possible as soon as possible. That goes for other renewables, too: solar PV will reach grid-parity this decade. New nuclear is not needed at all, and certainly not this decade. There is no good reason to advocate new nuclear.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Washington State is 72% renewable already.

Hydroelectric. Look it up. It still exists, and it stomps the stuffing out of wind and solar in this region. Hell, this STATE produces more RENEWABLE energy off hydro than the entire nation produces off wind and solar combined.

But yes, let's rebuild our entire grid to accomodate some piss-poor exotic solar shit we don't need up here. Excellent idea.

The future of Washington is Hydro, Geothermal, and THEN Wind. And I will stand by that prediction. Solar is a gadget up here, not worth thinking about. Now, farther down the coast toward California, that becomes another story.

Edit: Corrected my title. EERE says 72%, I was eyeballing a pie chart when I said 75%

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Oh please.

Yes, do let's ignore the renewable we're already rocking out here. Washington State generates nearly 1/4 of the hydroelectric power in the entire nation. Add in Oregon and California, and we're just under half. We could have added another 1/4 to that with the Rampart Dam in Alaska, but it was canceled.

We produce more RENEWABLE hydroelectric power in this state than the entire NATION produces in wind and solar.

So yes, thank you, we CAN get 35% of our power from renewables.

We already produce 75% of our power from renewables. Nice to see the fellow you're quoting did his homework.

Washington State can use Wind, but solar is just flat out fucking stupid, we have hydro, and we have quite a bit of potential geothermal power to be developed. SO there you go. Our grid is FINE. We don't need to retool every god damn thing about our grid to accomodate solar power up here. It's shit anyway in this region.