Integration and storage grow in prominence as renewable generation moves mainstream

For a long time, people in the utility industry were contemplating a future where renewable and clean energy technologies could provide a significant percentage of the electricity demand. Now that many European countries and a number of states in the US have actually achieved that dream, the focus of discussion has shifted to what do we do with all this intermittent energy, how can we integrate it into our existing transmission grid without jeopardizing network reliability, and what do we do with the energy when we do not need it or have too much of it? As the famous saying goes, compared to having too little renewable energy, these are good problems to have.

Recently, two major studies examined renewable integration issues in the context of the ambitious mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in California which requires 20% penetration by 2010 — yes, this year — and 33% by 2020, as reflected in an executive order issued by the outgoing California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As reported in the July 2010 issue of this newsletter, California is projected to reach 18% new renewable — i.e., without counting existing large hydro resources — target by the end of 2010 and 21% by 2011, made possible in part due to the current economic recession afflicting the state. While this technically falls short of the 2010 mandate, the utilities are likely to be forgiven since they can claim that they have done all they could to execute the required number of contracts with renewable developers. The 2010 target, they claim with some justification, could not be achieved due to permitting and construction delays and/or lack of adequate transmission capacity to integrate the renewable energy from the remote sites to major load centers.

The first report, released on 8 July, 2010 by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), based in Folsom, CA, is exclusively focused on renewable integration issues. For technical and detail-oriented engineers among our subscribers, this is a must read. The issues discussed, while California-centric, are nevertheless universal to any system operator who must deal with a 20% intermittent renewable generation mix — i.e., generation that is not dispatchable, is difficult and/or expensive to store, is not entirely predictable, appears at times where it may not be needed, and is often generated on the remote perimeters of the transmission network. Making matters worse, it is rapidly growing and is expected to reach a full one-third of retail sales within a decade in California — and in other places.

The renewable generation profile in California is further complicated by the fact that wind, already a major resource, is nearly perfectly misaligned with daily and seasonal demand and is heavily concentrated in a number of remote locations with limited transmission capacity. It blows when demand is low, and barely when it is most needed. Solar generation, on the other hand, has a much better correlation with California summer peak demand and some of the solar generation occurs closer to load centers — in some cases virtually on rooftops of industrial factories or warehouses, for example, where the demand is.

The second report (PDF), prepared by Kema Inc. a consultancy, for the California Energy Commission (CEC), takes a similar tack by looking into the impact of the growing renewable generation on the California’s grid and the need for energy storage or backup thermal generation. California’s energy demand and peak load are projected to resume their historical growth patterns once the current recession recedes.

Complicating the supply and demand integration is the peculiar features of California’s daily load profile, which is relatively flat and comparatively low in winter months hovering around 20 GWs, in contrast to hellish summer peaks that exceed 40 GWs, including daily swings of 15 GWs from low to peak.

With the expected growth of renewable resources, primarily wind, solar PV and concentrated solar or CS — also referred to as concentrated solar power or CSP — managing system reliability while absorbing intermittent renewables becomes a challenge. Under a high-case scenario, installed wind capacity in California is projected to increase 4 times while CS may increase by 25 times between 2009 and 2020. Needless to say, these trends will merely be magnified if extended further into the future.

Given the unique characteristics of each type of renewable energy resource, CAISO has to modify its operating and dispatching procedures to accommodate ever-increasing percentages of renewable generation over time. While the problem may be merely challenging in certain months when system load is modest and correlated with renewable generation, it becomes daunting under other circumstances.

The CEC report simulates the impact of various loads and generation scenarios. The accompanying graph — too detailed to reproduce well but available in the report (pg 35) — provides examples of generation mix for typical days in July, a hot summer month in California, for various years.

With so much non-dispatchable renewable resources, balancing load and generation becomes more complicated, hence the need for additional storage and/or more thermal generation. The CEC study concludes that — surprise — considerable additional storage will be required to handle the large swings in intermittent generation, as much as 3,000 MW under the high scenario case by 2020.

• China Tops US In Energy Consumption
• US Senate: No Cap And No Trade
• Oil From Alberta Tar Sands: From Frying Pan To Fire?
• Another Milestone: E-books Overtake Printed Variety
• Renewables Are All About Integration
• How Will Spain Cope With Unsustainable Renewable Subsidies
• What Explains The Growth In Electricity Consumption?
• Finns Affirm Nuclear’s Future
• Is There A Future For Modular Nukes?
• Yucca Or No Yucca?
• Would It Be 20 Or 30% Cut? That Is The Question For Europe
• Is Climategate Behind Us?
• Forget EVs: Bill Gates Puts Money In Improved IC Engines
• How Much Do You Pay For Juice?
• SEPA’s Top 10 Solar Utilities
• Can’t Afford Rooftop Solar PVs? Lease It
• Smart Grid Investments Are Growing, Will Tangible Benefits Follow?
• What Keeps Utility CEOs Up At Night?
• Limits To Luxury: How Many Showerheads In A Shower?

You can request a sample issue of EEnergy Informer here.

Everyone asks how much more energy we’ll need, where it will come from, and at what cost? Are those the correct questions to ask?

For over 3 decades, the International Association for Energy Economics (IAEE) has been organizing annual events where participants discuss energy, economics and environmental issues. At these gatherings, energy economists spend a lot of time and effort to project how much more energy we are going to need, where are we going to get it, and at what cost? In recent times, more attention is being paid to environmental issues, including the impact of fossil fuel combustion on climate. Hardly anyone ever asks whether this state of affairs is sustainable? Or why should we take future demand growth as a given? Or can we continue to carry on as we have done in the past — digging, drilling and burning more fossil fuels as if there was no tomorrow?

At the latest conference in early June held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Professor Jose Goldemberg deviated from the usual script with a keynote speech titled, “Why do we need a new energy order?” His main message was that our present energy system is not sustainable because it is highly inequitable, it is overly dependent on exhaustible fossil fuels, has serious geopolitical problems, it has detrimental effects on human health, and — yes — it is inexorably leading us to global warming.

Professor Goldemberg recommended a 3 pronged approach to address these problems: increasing energy access for those who do not currently have it, switching to biofuels — after all the conference was held in Brazil — and increasing reliance on renewable resources in electricity generation, all sensible things to do.

While few can fault Professor Goldemberg’s excellent assessment of the problem or his prognosis to address it, there may be a more fundamental question that goes to the core of today’s energy problem, and that is why do we need so much energy to begin with, and what do we use it for? Looking at the first accompanying graph, it is clear that we have been on an exponential growth with no end in sight. The second graph, explains what everyone intuitively knows, namely as nations become more affluent, they demand more energy services, be it mobility, heat, lighting, cooling — you name it. The graph, of course, shows what happens to demand for mobility as GDP grows.

But as Professor Goldemberg acknowledged, the key question that is frequently left out of the equation is how can we provide an adequate standard of living for the world at large on a frugal energy and carbon footprint? How can we meet the demand for energy services that drive the demand for energy by doing things differently — and perhaps not doing them at all?

I recall a comparison of energy associated with sending a document via an express courier across the globe as opposed to faxing the same document, with significant energy savings in the latter case. That was many years ago when fax was a relatively new technology. Today, the same document can be zipped at the speed of light via the Internet. Who needs the FedEx or for that matter the fax machine?

Countless examples like this suggest that we can, and should, do a lot more with a lot less. And the sooner we start questioning why we use so much energy, and why we will need even more of it in the future, the closer we get to finding our way to a new energy order.

• Massive Gulf Oil Leak Ushers In the Age of Tough Oil
• EIA Sees More Of The Same
• Do We Need A New World Order?
• What Value Energy Security
• UN Names Successor To de Boer, But Don’t Expect Any Miracles
• End of Fuel Subsidies Urged By IEA
• Smart Meters Are Here, Will Smart Prices And Devices Follow?
• NREL Says 35% Renewable Feasible By 2017
• Why Nuclear Faces Uphill Battle
• Well-To-Wheel Favors CNG
• Masdar To Build CSP Plant In Desert
• California Approaching 20% RPS Target
• Book Review-Fast Forward: Ethics & Politics in the Age of Global Warming

You can request a sample issue of EEnergy Informer here.

Ideology gets in the way of comparing policy options while ignoring more fundamental global shifts

To promote renewable energy resources, many states have introduced mandatory renewable portfolio standards (RPS), and for some time, there has been talk of a national renewable electricity standard (RES). Not surprisingly, it would be legitimate to ask how much will we, as consumers and citizens, be paying for all this green and clean energy?

There are, of course, no shortages of answers — and depending on who you ask, the results vary by a wide margin based on the ideological inclination of the study’s sponsors, researchers and the intended audience. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), for example, would like you to believe that RES and subsidies for wind and other renewable resources are the best cure for all of the nation’s ills: notably unemployment, energy security, high costs of imported oil and climate. A right leaning think-tank like the American Enterprise Institute will convince you otherwise. The truth may be somewhere in between and — depending on the assumptions — can swing from one extreme to another.

A recent study by the Heritage Foundation (HF), a conservative think-tank titled A Renewable Electricity Standard: What It Will Really Cost Americans, concludes — not surprisingly — that “Instead of saving money for Americans, renewable energy sources are much more likely to spike their utility bills.” The study, which assumes a national RES starting at 3% in 2012 and gradually rising until it reaches 37.5% by 2035, claims that adopting such a policy “would be bad for families, bad for business, and bad for the economy.”

If you are looking for arguments against renewable energy resources, you need to look no further. According to the study, a federal RES will raise consumers’ utility bills, destroy jobs, add to budget deficits and result in little or no environmental benefits. The HF says RES will:

• Raise electricity prices by 36% for households, 60% for the industry;
• Cut GDP by $5.2 trillion by 2035;
• Reduce national income by $2,400 per annum for a family of 4;
• Destroy 300,000 jobs by 2012 and 1.3 million by 2032; and
• Add $11,000 to an average family’s share of the national debt.

In short, nothing good will come of such a misguided notion. The intended message is “drill baby, drill,” the slogan favored by the extreme right wing of the Republican party. It is music to the ears of the coal, oil, gas and nuclear lobby — who often fund such studies.

Regardless of ones ideological orientation, the Heritage Foundation study points out that higher electricity prices will lead to lower consumption — presumably due to energy efficiency gains and loss of energy-intensive manufacturing. Residential consumers, facing a 36% price rise, are projected to reduce consumption by 19% relative to the baseline scenario for 2035 but will still face a $300 increase in average annual electricity bill. For industrial customers, the price rise may be as high as 60% resulting in 23% drop in consumption and 21% higher bills relative to the business-as-usual case.

Viewed from the vintage point of the HF, this is all bad. But one can make an argument for higher prices leading to higher energy utilization efficiencies and some adjustments in the composition of the economy, moving away from energy-intensive industries to higher value-added enterprises. This newsletter has nothing against manufacturing or heavy industry, but the reality is that such jobs are increasingly migrating to lower cost countries, with or without a federal RES.

The US manufacturing sector, which was operating at around 65% of capacity last June according to the Federal Reserve, has been gradually shedding jobs, a trend markedly accelerated during the current economic recession. And most economists do not expect any of the lost jobs to return even after the US economy rebounds. Studies such as this can put the blame on RES and those who are ideologically opposed to environmental causes (e.g., see related article on California’s climate bill) can predict doom and gloom, but the reality may be more fundamental structural shifts in the composition of the global economy.

Few people would disagree with notion that renewable resources are currently more expensive than conventional fossil-fuels but many would argue that if we include the cost of externalities such as environmental and national security implications and take a long-term perspective — during which fossil fuel prices are likely to rise while renewable energy costs are likely to fall — the end justifies the means.

• Accidents Bring Energy And Environment Into Focus
• Signs of Nuclear Revival Abound
• For Energy Growth Look Outside OECD
• Australia Puts Emission Curbs On Hold, Squeezes Mining Sector
• Global Climate Treaty Going Nowhere In 2010
• Will California Put Climate On Hold?
• Europe’s Roadmap To 2050 Is Feasible
• US Had Another Record Wind Year
• How Much Is Too Much For Renewable Energy Resources?
• Turning Off Lights Not As Easy As It Sounds
• Unconventional Gas: How Much Of A GameChanger?
• NAS Delivers Another Blow To Climate Skeptics

You can request a sample issue of EEnergy Informer here.

Future demand is no longer necessarily growing, nor taken as a given

While reducing the carbon content of the supply-side is broadly accepted as a prudent strategy, more focus in being paid to the demand-side including efficient utilization of energy and, increasingly, behavioral and lifestyle changes. This may sound trivial, but it represents a sea change in thinking. If less energy is required due to more efficient utilization and behavioral changes, then less energy need to be supplied, with considerable cost, economic, energy security and environmental implications.

Echoing this theme, a report released by UK’s Royal Academy of Engineers in March examines 4 future scenarios, all focused almost exclusively on the demand-side of the energy supply and demand. Generating the Future: UK’s Energy Systems Fit for 2050, prepared in response to the Climate Change Act that became law in Nov 2008, seeks to reduce UK’s greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. This much is not new, but what is new is the novel approach taken on how to meet the target. Instead of asking how to reduce the carbon content of supply-side options while allowing energy demand to rise, the report asks what can be done to get by with less energy?

The study examines 4 future energy scenarios. The first assumes an essentially flat demand through 2050 — which requires significant adjustments in how energy is utilized throughout the economy. Scenarios 2 and 3 examine lowering demand moderately — by 28% — over time through electrification of transportation sector and low-grade heat. Scenario 4 assumes a significant reduction in energy demand over time — by 46%.

The supply-side options follow once the adjustments on the demand side are taken into account with corresponding reductions in CO2 emissions. In all four cases, the reliance on electric power sector increases, with much more coming from low carbon sources including renewable resources, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration.

The study’s main conclusions, while not earthshaking, are sensible and consistent with similar studies of how to achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions over time:

• There is no single silver bullet that will achieve an 80% cut in carbon emissions — suggesting that “fundamental restructuring of the whole of the UK’s energy system will be unavoidable;”
• Significant “demand reductions across all sectors of the economy will be essential through a combination of increased efficiencies and behavioral change;”
• “The full suite of low-carbon energy supply options … will be needed … in a balanced way;” and not surprisingly;
• “The scale of engineering challenge is massive.”

The lucid 21-page report is a relatively easy read with technical details and assumptions in appendices. The most refreshing aspect of the study is its focus on what needs to be done on the demand side before turning attention on the supply-side options.

For too long, the engineering-dominated power sector has been resigned to take customer demand as a given and take continuous demand growth for granted. The era of ever-rising supplies matching growing demand at falling prices have passed. We must learn not to take demand as a given, nor to assume continued demand growth as has been the case in the past. The Royal Academy of Engineers deserves recognition for taking a gigantic leap to a future where demand is no longer growing, nor is taken as a given.

• What Cost Energy?
• New Obama, Same Old Washington Politics
• Coal’s Time Has Passed
• Windy Outlook
• UK’s Energy Future Is On Demand Side
• What’s Stopping New US Nukes?
• Car And Bike Sharing Gains Footing
• CFLs Reach Saturation Levels in California
• Biofuels: More Harm Than Good?
• Data Centers Pop Up In Pacific Northwest
• France Backs Off Carbon Tax

You can request a sample issue of EEnergy Informer here.

Blame it on rapid proliferation of home entertainment devices

Setting aside the recent drop in electricity consumption, the first experienced in decades and entirely attributed to the current economic slump, demand for electricity in the US has been growing at a slow pace — not anywhere near the rates experienced in rapidly developing economies. The main drivers are growing population and continued proliferation of new electricity consuming devices.

In the all important residential sector, which accounts for roughly 40% of US electricity consumption, average consumption has risen even though the number of people per household continues to shrink. Americans are living in larger homes and migrating to the West and the South — which means higher air conditioning use. That much is easy to figure. But what may not be so obvious is the composition of consumption within a typical household.

When researchers began to decompose residential electricity consumption in mid 1970s, they identified 7 major uses for electricity within typical US households, namely air conditioners, space heating, water heating — these last two categories tend to be electric in warmer climates since they are less frequently needed — refrigerators, freezers, indoor lighting and ranges/ovens. In 1977, the average US household used 7,900 kWh with these 7 devices accounting for 91% of the total. Everything else added to a mere 9%.

The total has gradually grown over time — this is not surprising — but the proportion consumed by the 7 major categories has actually declined by 10% (see graph). The explanation? More efficient devices, better insulation and so on has more than offset the fact that homes tend to be bigger today requiring more cooling, more heating and more lighting. The average US home built today is roughly 50% larger than those built in mid 70s. The most stunning efficiency gains have come from refrigerators. The average fridge today uses a quarter of the energy used by its mid 1970 counterpart, even though they have grown significantly bigger and include more features.

While consumption by the 7 major categories has declined, overall consumption continues to rise due to the proliferation of a host of other electricity guzzling gadgets and devices that did not exist in the mid 1970s include flat-screen TVs and other audio/video home entertainment peripherals — by far the biggest electricity guzzling gadgets found in most US homes today — computers, printers, microwave ovens, dishwashers, outdoor lighting and a host of smallish gadgets that use little electricity individually, but add up collectively, such as portable phones, communication and entertainment devices.

According to Jone-Lin Wang, head of Global Power at Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), the new devices outside the big-7 now account for 43% of average US household electricity use — and this proportion is expected to continue to grow. Alan Meier, an energy efficiency expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) estimates that the average home in California has over 40 plugged devices today. Moreover, these devices collectively and continuously draw over 100 Watts of power, even when not in use, because of the stand-by features — the so-called phantom energy drain.

Nearly every Japanese home now has at least one flat screen TV, the percentage in US and Europe is close to 60% and rising. Consumer electronic makers are now eyeing a new generation of 3-dimensional TVs, the latest craze to hit the home entertainment market. The sales are projected to grow from 4.2 million this year to 78 million by 2015 according to iSuppli — a market research firm, and that is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Many up-scale US homes now feature a family entertainment room with high-end speakers, giant flat screen TV and assortment of peripherals to download, record, store and display audio and video, increasingly downloaded via the Internet. Who needs to go to the movies in this day and age? Likewise, a growing number of people in rich countries now work out of their home, which means personal computers, display screens, printers, scanners and a host of communication devices. Who needs to commute to the office — if only the boss will let you?

These trends have significant implications for future energy efficiency policies. Just when regulators and policy makers thought they were making headway in curbing residential electricity consumption, they find that a myriad of new devices with virtually no energy efficiency standards are penetrating the household sector at fast clip. This explains the recent decision by California Regulators, always on the leading edge, to set new energy efficiency standards for flat screen TVs.

Experts like LBL’s Mr. Meier are now pushing for standards and regulations to reduce phantom energy consumption, an insidious new threat because people are not even aware of its existence. To appreciate what is going on, turn “off” everything in the house and go watch the electric meter spin.

• With So Much Cheap Gas, Who Needs Coal?
• Don’t Expect A Climate Treaty This Year
• What’s Driving Growth In The Residential Electricity Sector?
• EU To Meet Its 2020 Renewable Target
• Guess Who Buys More Oil From Saudis Than The US?
• Stick Mightier Than Carrot, Only If You Dare To Use It
• Energy Blooms In A Box
• Wind Gains, Natural Gas Loses
• California Pushes Ahead On 1 Million Solar Roofs
• What Will It Take To Build A New Nuke In The US?
• Will V2G Evolve Into A Great Electrical Sponge?
• The More You Use The More You Pay

You can request a sample issue of EEnergy Informer here.