Renewables Hypocrisy

Update August 18, 2017 at the bottom

Charles McConnell explains the emptiness of this recent popular virtue signaling.  His article in WSJ is City Pledges for ‘100% Renewable Energy’ Are 99% Misleading
The power grid is built on fossil fuels, and there’s no way to designate certain electrons as guilt free. Entire article reprinted below (my bolds and images)

Dozens of cities have made a misleading pledge: that they will move to 100% renewable energy so as to power residents’ lives without emitting a single puff of carbon. At a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in late June, leaders unanimously adopted a resolution setting a “community-wide target” of 100% clean power by 2035. Mayors from Portland, Ore., to Los Angeles to Miami Beach have signed on to these goals.

States are getting in the game, too. Two years ago Hawaii pledged that its electricity would be entirely renewable by 2045. The California Senate recently passed a bill setting the same goal, while moving up the state’s timeline to get half its electricity from renewables from 2030 to 2025.

Let’s not get carried away. Although activists herald these pledges as major environmental accomplishments, they’re more of a marketing gimmick. Use my home state of Texas as an example. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas oversees 90% of the state’s electricity generation and distribution. Texas generates more wind and solar power than any other state. Yet more than 71% of the council’s total electricity still comes from coal and natural gas.

The trick is that there’s no method to designate electrons on the grid as originating from one source or another. Power generated by fossil fuels and wind turbines travels together over poles and underground wires before reaching cities, homes and businesses. No customer can use power from wind and solar farms exclusively.

So how do cities make this 100% renewable claim while still receiving regular electricity from the grid? They pay to generate extra renewable energy that they then sell on the market. If they underwrite enough, they can claim to have offset whatever carbon-generated electricity they use. The proceeds from the sale go back to the city and are put toward its electric bill.

In essence, these cities are buying a “renewable” label to put on the regular power they’re using. Developers of wind and solar farms win because they can use mayoral commitments to finance their projects, which probably are already subsidized by taxpayers.

But the game would never work without complete confidence in the reliability of the grid, which is dependent on a strategy of “all of the above,” generating power from sources that include coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.

The mayor of Georgetown, Texas, announced earlier this year that his city had reached its goal of 100% renewable electricity. But in a 2015 article announcing the pledge, he acknowledged what would happen if solar and wind were not able to cover the city’s needs: “The Texas grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, will ensure generation is available to meet demand.”

Two years ago the mayor of Denton, Texas, announced a plan to go 70% renewable, while calling a target of 100% unrealistic. “One of the challenges of renewable energy is that it’s so hard to predict,” he said. “You don’t know exactly when the sun is going to shine or when the wind is going to blow. To maintain that reliable power, you must have backup power.”

There is no denying that wind and solar power are important to a balanced energy portfolio. But coal is the bedrock of affordable electricity, and it will remain so, no matter how much wishful thinking by environmental activists. Coal is abundant and reliable. Unlike wind and solar, coal generation can be dialed up and down in response to market conditions and to satisfy demand.

The headline-grabbing 100% renewable pledges intentionally overlook these facts. Fossil fuels are not only the largest and most critical component of the energy portfolio, they are the foundation upon which renewable power must stand. Wind and solar generators ride free into the electric grid on the backs of fossil generators that have installed and paid for the infrastructure on which all Americans depend. The rise of renewable generation is made possible by fossil fuels, not despite them.

We should celebrate the growth of renewables, but not with false and misleading claims. What’s needed is transparency and a shared objective to provide consumers with the most reliable, resilient and affordable energy available.

Mr. McConnell, executive director of the Energy and Environment Initiative at Rice University, was an assistant secretary of energy, 2011-13.

Update August 18, 2017

People need to know that adding renewables to an electrical grid presents both technical and economic challenges.  Experience shows that adding intermittent power more than 10% of the baseload makes precarious the reliability of the supply.  South Australia is demonstrating this with a series of blackouts when the grid cannot be balanced.  Germany got to a higher % by dumping its excess renewable generation onto neighboring countries until the EU finally woke up and stopped them. Texas got up to 29% by dumping onto neighboring states, and some like Georgia are having problems.

But more dangerous is the way renewables destroy the economics of electrical power.  Seasoned energy analyst Gail Tverberg writes:

In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today. There are too many costs outside building the devices themselves. It is these secondary costs that are problematic. Also, the presence of intermittent electricity disrupts competitive prices, leading to electricity prices that are far too low for other electricity providers, including those providing electricity using nuclear or natural gas. The tiny contribution of wind and solar to grid electricity cannot make up for the loss of more traditional electricity sources due to low prices.

These issues are discussed in more detail in the post Climateers Tilting at Windmills

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. jan.verbanck@engie.com · 10 Days Ago

    100% green, 70% green….Hard numbers in a country of which the Big Chief refuses to sign anything regarding solid climate objectives. Still, it’s the way to go !

    Like

  2. Energy Mix Podcast · 9 Days Ago

    Solar projects regularly close PPAs with prices of $30/MWh. Refer to a Dec 2016 Lazards report in which new coal fired power stations are priced at between $69 and $120/MWh.

    Regarding your point on bulk energy purchase from a grid, it makes complete sense that a customer can secure an agreement with a retailer to buy 100% renewable energy. That is how a bulk energy market works – your argument that electrons cannot be distinguished doesn’t hold when it comes to how an electricity market functions. In the case of Texas ERCOT manages the market clearing process that settles generators’ exports against retailers’ sales.

    Like

  3. Ron Clutz · 9 Days Ago

    Thanks for commenting EMP. I take issue with your use of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) since it disregards the huge costs intermittent power imposes on the grid. As I have posted grids run into problems when renewables get higher than 10 – 12% of baseload. See Climateers Tilting at Windmills. https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/climateers-tilting-at-windmills-updated/

    See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/11/29/levelized-cost-of-electricity-renewable-energys-ticking-time-bomb/2/#5d3dda1477d9

    Like

  4. Ron Clutz · 9 Days Ago

    Just to be clear about the accounting hypocrisy.

    Generators exports refers to power sources of more than 1 MW inputting to the grid, who are paid for that electricity according to contractual terms and conditions. Retailers are charged for electricity consumed by their subscribers, according to their contracts. The electrons are the same.

    Ercot supplies about 24,000,000 customers. And as the above essay states, 29% of the electricity comes from wind and solar (“clean”) while 71% of the total electricity comes from coal and natural gas sources (“unclean”). The accounting trick means that on average, about 7M customers can claim they are “100% clean”, as long as the other 17M are willing to be called “100% unclean”.

    Sounds like an Indian caste system.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s