/ Francis Menton
Most feedback at this website are likely to have a perspective typically according to my very own. But typically a publish will entice feedback from folks with a really completely different standpoint. That occurred on a publish earlier this week titled “Two More Contributions On The impossibility Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar, And Batteries.”
That publish and the one instantly previous it (“Calculating The Full Costs Of Electrifying Everything Using Only Wind, Solar, And Batteries”) had each targeted on a selected problem inherent within the challenge of changing dispatchable carbon-based sources of vitality (coal, oil, pure gasoline) with intermittent “renewables” (wind, photo voltaic). That problem is that, because the intermittent renewables come to supply a larger share {of electrical} era and as dispatchable fossil fuels get phased out, there may be an accelerating want for enormously costly vitality storage to supply the electrical energy at occasions when the renewables go quiet. The two posts linked to detailed research written by 4 completely different authors, every of whom had supplied an in depth description of their methodology. Two of the 4 authors even supplied spreadsheets, so {that a} reader who believes the assumptions of the writer are flawed can change these assumptions and derive a brand new price estimate from the altered assumptions.
The import of all of those research is that as renewables come to dominate the combination of electrical energy era, and notably as their share of era goes above 50% and on in the direction of 100%, and fossil gas backup will get phased out, then the price of mandatory storage turns into far and away the dominant price of the general system. Therefore, any significant proposal to interchange fossil gas era with renewables should grapple with this problem.
So what's the resolution that the dissenting commenters provide for the issue of accelerating want for costly storage? They don’t provide any in any respect. Instead, they seem to assume that the entire downside may be assumed away or ignored.
The dissenting commenters had been three in quantity, and posted below the pseudonyms “Johnathan Galt,” “GKam,” and “reneawbleguy.” Galt and GKam every posted just one remark, however “reneawbleguy” posted over forty.
The gist of all these feedback actually comes all the way down to the identical factor, particularly that the renewables are quickly turning into cheaper than fossil fuels to generate electrical energy, if they aren't so already, and subsequently fossil fuels are a dying business. Mixed in with this level is a great deal of snide and accusatory language, primarily asserting that anybody who might disagree as to the relative full price of renewables should essentially be each ignorant and politically motivated. (e.g., GKam: “More science nonsense from this group of political hacks. . . . Give it up You have already lost.”). Meanwhile, all three fail to deal in any possible way with the storage downside inherent in enlargement of era from the renewables.
Here is “reneawbleguy” on the relative price of fossil gas electrical energy era versus renewables:
Energy prices financial savings. RE might be cheaper that FF enterprise as ordinary. 10.43 cents per kw-hr FF 7.81 cents per kw-hr RE. Dollars into our pockets is a transparent distinction favoring RE. Clear distinction.
Money price financial savings per particular person.
No supply is cited, however I might agree that roughly these numbers may be present in some research of relative prices of the renewables versus fossil fuels. But the research that get these numbers it accomplish that by ignoring all the storage downside utterly.
Similarly, from Galt:
[T]he solely consideration to shoppers is, was, and all the time might be “what is the delivered cost to me?” That is neatly quantified in Lazard’s glorious publication offering LCOE.
As I've identified on this weblog quite a few occasions, the Lazard numbers for “LCOE” (Levelized Cost of Energy) particularly omit any inherent prices of mandatory storage. Since the price of storage is the dominant price of the all-renewable system, LCOE is the alternative of a “neat quantification” of comparative electrical energy era prices, and quickly turns into utterly deceptive as the share generated from renewables will increase past 50%.
GKam is even much less refined, merely counting on his personal private expertise with a house getting its energy from rooftop photo voltaic panels:
My total family and each electrical vehicles are powered by the PV system on our roof, as “Galt” can let you know, and it offers us free energy having paid again in three years.
GKam doesn't enlighten us as to how he will get his electrical energy at evening, or overcast days within the winter, or whether or not he has bought batteries adequate to retailer up energy from the summer time to be used throughout these lengthy winter nights. If he lives within the United States, it's virtually sure that he depends on his native grid — in different phrases, on fossil gas backup, with maybe some nuclear thrown in — for energy throughout these occasions.
Of the three dissenting commenters, the one one who addresses the storage problem in any respect is Galt. He asserts, with nice confidence, that new battery applied sciences are coming to make the storage downside go away:
At least two separate applied sciences, Ambri and Form Energy, will virtually actually have their first giant factories up and working inside 5 years. Both use frequent supplies (antimony and calcium, iron), each are environmentally secure. Ambri’s battery is 100% recyclable, and in principle might final greater than 100 years. Form Energy’s product is likewise 100% recyclable, ought to price solely 20% that of Lithium Ion, and though the lifespan isn't but marketed it has the potential for comparable lifetime of use (merely a “reversible rusting” course of).
So the proposal is {that a} government-mandated complete transformation of all the vitality system of our financial system ought to rely on one or one other of two not-yet-invented-or demonstrated-at-scale applied sciences, which can or might not work, and the price projections of which can be wildly off. Galt doesn't do any precise numerical calculations. But at a value of “20% that of Lithium ion” the storage programs he's speaking about would nonetheless indicate a value of round $100 trillion in Ken Gregory’s spreadsheet, some 5 occasions present U.S. GDP. Shouldn’t this be acknowledged as an issue? And how are you going to advocate use of Lazard’s “LCOE” numbers for relative prices of vitality sources when these calculations omit a $100 trillion merchandise relevant to wind and photo voltaic however to not fossil fuels?
So I say to those three commenters: it’s time to step up your recreation. Don’t simply make unsupported assertions that wind and photo voltaic are cheaper. Give us a spreadsheet with a numerical demonstration of how a lot storage a completely wind/photo voltaic/storage electrical energy system for the U.S. will want, what expertise might be used to supply it, and the way a lot that may price. Without that, you're simply dealing in fantasy.
Full article right here.
