Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Frank's avatar

Steve: I could summarize your analyses by saying 1 MW-h of electricity from non-dispatchable renewable generation (like solar) is not worth as much as 1 MW-h of electricity from fossil fuel or nuclear generation that can be dispatched to meet demand. The LCOE for renewable generation is merely propaganda in a real world where prices are determined by the law of supply and demand. The challenging question is: HOW MUCH LESS is electricity from renewable sources worth? The answer to that question depends on what fraction of electricity is coming from intermittent sources (penetrance) and local factors that affect the abundance and variance of wind and sunshine. I see two possible answers to this dilemma.

As best I can tell natural gas generation can provide a relatively cheap way to make unreliable renewable generation reliable. Most of the cost of natural gas generation comes from the cost of the fuel, and customers only need to pay for fuel when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. They pay only a small capital charge continuous to have a gas plant on stand-by when renewable generation is meeting demand. The capital charge needed to store enough solar to cover a predictable number of HOURS of night with batteries is already tolerable, but storage become impractically costly when meeting demand during an unpredictable number of DAYS of calm or cloudy skies.

One place I can roughly estimate the lesser value of electricity from renewable sources is looking at plans for meeting demand with 100% renewable sources. Back in the good old days, you analyzed a paper by Budischak for meeting historic demand on the PJM grid using renewable electricity based on historic weather on 99.9% of days. IIRC, the optimum solution involved mostly building enough wind generation capacity so that even weak winds could meet demand most of the time. That meant building three times the wind capacity needed to meet average demand and wasting 2/3rds of the electricity that could have been generated. If I remember correctly, that would imply that 1 MW-h of electricity from renewable source is worth 1/3 as much as 1 MW-h of electricity that can be generated to meet demand. Princeton U has plans for meeting 100% of US demand for electricity with Net Zero CO2 emissions by a variety of scenarios, including one that relies on 100% renewable generation. IIRC, that plan also calls for building average renewable generation capacity about 3 times larger than conventional generation capacity, plus about one day's worth of storage capacity plus a 5-fold increase in transmission capacity. If properly analyzed by the standards you used for South Australia, this might be used to demonstrate that 1 MW-h of electricity of from renewable sources is worth less than 1/3 as much as electricity from generators that can dispatch electricity on demand.

Douglass Allen's avatar

Steve,

Thank you for your efforts to understand and explain wholesale and retail energy costs in part of Australia. I wonder how the South Australia case study relates to other lands. It would be educational to do something similar for other areas like Iceland, Norway, and France which rely on different energy sources than Australia, and each other. Then Germany and Great Britain's efforts, similar to Australia's, might be evaluated.

There are the other crucial parts of "the politically loaded claims in the energy debate"- 1) reduction in carbon emissions and 2) actual effect on global warming and sea level rise. Energy independence is another desired outcome and maybe easier to evaluate. The proposed energy transition involves trillions of dollars in costs, revenues, and profits and losses. If money corrupts, well..... Alas, so many moving parts! Whew!

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?