The Best Path to Renewable Energy
[Guest post by DRJ]
Texas had an energy problem Sunday — too much wind power:
“With strong breezes blowing early Sunday afternoon in West Texas, wind-power generation hit a record 6,242 megawatts on the Electric Reliability Council of Texas’ [ERCOT] grid, which serves most of the state.
The wind generation peaked at 12:54 p.m., representing an exceptionally high 22 percent of demand at that time, ERCOT spokeswoman Dottie Roark said Monday. Most of the wind facilities are in West Texas and the Panhandle.
Roy Blackshear, manager of the AEP Desert Sky Wind Farm near Iraan in Pecos County, a 107-turbine, 160.5-megawatt facility, said he was “really surprised” to see that wind’s share of the power load hit 22 percent.
“It proves we’re going to be able to use renewables effectively. … It’s huge,” he said of the growing capability of generation from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
***
After the wind generation soared Sunday, ERCOT curtailed it because the supply of electricity outstripped the capacity of lines to move the power to urban areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth.“We have more wind [generation] built in the west than can be accommodated on the existing transmission lines,” Roark said. That’s why ERCOT is overseeing a huge $5 billion project to build more lines from wind farms to the state’s metropolitan areas, she said.”
Unlike the rest of the nation, Texas has its own power grid and is reluctant to part with it for several reasons, including to avoid federal government regulation:
“Since roughly 1935, the majority of Texas utilities have opted to isolate themselves from interstate connection and thus from federal regulation over rates, terms and conditions of electrical transmission. Managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), they now provide more than 85 percent of the state’s electrical load, covering 75 percent of its land area. For utilities, that makes energy a straightforward market to do business in, and it allows them to be more nimble and innovative with new energy sources. It also vastly expedites the process for renewable energy developers that want to plug in to state transmission lines.
“If you go to either of the other two grids you’ve got to get 20-something state utility commissions to agree on something,” B.J. Stanbery, the founder of the Austin-based solar manufacturer HelioVolt, says. “In Texas, we’ve only got one to persuade. Now, that’s a big benefit.” As a result, Texas has, in very short order, erected enough wind turbines to become the national leader in wind-energy production — by a wide margin. If it were a country, Texas would rank sixth in wind power. With a semiconductor industry already based in Austin, Texas could do the same with solar, according to community leader Brewster McCracken. “The fact that we have a major technology center and we’re not on the federal grid means that if we decide to lead, we’re well positioned to lead,” he says.”
Texas produces and consumes more electricity than any other state, accounting for more than one-tenth of total U.S. energy use. Energy efficiency has lowered per capita residential use to pre-1965 levels, and 50% of all energy is used in industry compared to a national average of 32%. Texas is taking an all of the above approach to energy including wind power:
“The new listings, based on 2008 year-end numbers, show Texas leading in wind capacity and largest wind farms installed, Minnesota and Iowa both generating over 7% of their electricity from wind, and Indiana as the state with the fastest growth in wind on a percentage basis.”
The Obama Administration wants regulation and government subsidies to pave the way to renewable energy. As Texas illustrates, decreased regulation and market incentives may be the better path.
— DRJ
For the record, it was really windy Sunday.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:04 pmwind generation butchers birds…… and it’s unsightly.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:19 pmUnfortunately, the picture painted here covers up something rather ugly: since wind is extremely variable on a minute-to-minute basis and totally unpredictable at that scale, it’s necessary for the power grid to have backup power available at a moment’s notice that it can switch to if the wind dies.
Which means you have to be burning coal in a coal-fired power plant somewhere even though you’re not using the power it’s creating. All the energy is going up the stack, but that coal has to be paid for anyway.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:24 pmI saw a small wind farm near South Point, HI, about 20 or so of the modern windmills sitting idle in the perma-breeze. And HI has excessively high electric rates. Lots of people go off-grid there, some even by hooking up their car to their house for their car to provide electricity.
I know HI is very much over-regulated and very much over-taxed, so this likely plays into the under-utilization of the wind farm there. But the more I hear about TX, the more I like the land of my fathers. If you can keep the ALF-lovers barricaded in Austin (and outside the Statehouse and Legislature), TX will continue to be the best nation on earth.
John Hitchcock (f11d8f) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:28 pmThe best way around that issue is more nuke plants. Hopefully STP want be the last new unit built in Texas.
James O (9e3ca3) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:33 pmJohn, considering that HI has the highest gas prices in the US that is saying something.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:38 pmWhy use coal when there’s all that black gold? And a plentiful supply of natural gas?
But I suspect wind farms and solar farms in western TX will grow. And energy storage systems will advance in order to handle the added capacity during optimal production and the lowered capacity during insufficient production.
I don’t see any real reason wind farms couldn’t also be used as solar farms, especially in regions like western TX. I could easily see photo-voltaics or solar-saline fields covering the wind farms. And a small oil-powered or natural gas-powered electric generator on site at each solar wind farm for use when the environment is uncooperative and the storage system reaches a certain level.
John Hitchcock (f11d8f) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:43 pmHave Blue, Hawai’ians who are helping people figure out how to move there and live there suggest smallish refrigerators and try to dissuade new arrivals from having deep-freezes, due to the cost of electricity. They also suggest against big-screen plasma TVs for the same reason.
John Hitchcock (f11d8f) — 3/1/2010 @ 10:50 pmWind energy is variable as Steven Den Beste points out, although apparently ERCOT has determined “8.7% of the installed wind capability can be counted as dependable capacity” during Texas’ peak demand period. And as John Hitchcock points out, emerging technologies may make it easier to store wind energy. However, the biggest problem for Texas energy users is that winds are weakest during the hot summer when A/C demand is highest.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/1/2010 @ 11:18 pmSolution: More outdoor political events.
AD - RtR/OS! (aa95b5) — 3/1/2010 @ 11:32 pmDRJ, it does sound like that emerging technology will suffer more bleed-off than a super-sized battery would. From a purely non-scientific viewpoint, that doubling of the ultracapacitor storage ability would be useful only in the short-term and not for a 6-month storage system.
But, in a capacity availability aspect, it could open up the possibility of actually harnessing the power of a lightning strike, if the problems with a sudden huge power input of that magnitude can be resolved.
John Hitchcock (f11d8f) — 3/1/2010 @ 11:35 pmActually, I favor deregulation because I don’t think renewable energy sources will be able to significantly supplant fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources in the foreseeable future.
Government has a role to play in subsidizing research and promoting experimentation, but I think the market will do a better job deciding what energy sources work best. So while I’m glad to see wind energy experimentation, I don’t think it’s the complete answer — and the market is more likely to realize that before government will.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:21 amDRJ – I would be quite happy if renewable energy sources could supplant fossil fuel energy sources … for that to work, the percentage of energy supplied by nuclear will have to go up significantly …
As I have said before, and will say again, if France can produce more than 80% of its own electricity from nuclear while still exporting electricity to other European countries, then surely the US can do at least as well ?
Alasdair (205079) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:46 amI think nuclear energy is the obvious answer, too, but I’m not holding my breath.
I think energy is the lifeblood of a successful economy so I’d rather have too much than too little, and I’m willing to pay extra to make sure we have abundant energy. Texas is blessed — and occasionally not so blessed — with lots of sun and wind, which means solar and wind energy are sources Texans have to consider.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:51 amDRJ – so you don’t think the colour blue suits you ? (grin)
Alasdair (205079) — 3/2/2010 @ 1:00 amHeh. It’s actually my favorite color but not that way.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/2/2010 @ 1:10 amAs Texas illustrates, decreased regulation and market incentives
may beARE the better path.You need to adjust your bold.
papertiger (b40a74) — 3/2/2010 @ 1:44 amIf you go to either of the other two grids you’ve got to get 20-something state utility commissions to agree on something
What is needed is a port authority-type multi-state commission to make these decisions.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/2/2010 @ 6:55 amI don’t understand why private enterprise/free market and goverment guidance can’t be employed to develop solutions. We need energy creation solutions, energy storage solutions, energy transmission solutions, and usage optimization solutions. Personally, I think Storage and Transmission is where the focus should be; if we can manage that, then sources like concentrated solar power (CSP) and wind become almost feasible. R&D subsidies, tax credits, what have you can help to make expensive (compared to fossil fuels right now) technologies more cost competetive while economies of scale are being developed. China is taking steps to harness the wind on a greater scale than we are, while still running oil ventures in Africa and burning tons of coal. I don’t think they’re smarter, but they understand they really need the energy and their gov’t has fewer obstacles to getting things done (totalitarianism can really grease the skids).
I’d like to see any administration go to the big energy companies and tell them to read the writing on the wall. Get busy with the R&D on alternates to fossil fuels, get your patents and take the lead. Small companies can still get research funds and/or tax credits, develop better batteries (for example) and then get bought out by Chevron-Texaco (but hopefully not just to mothball the technology).
Regardless of your view on global warming, wouldn’t it be sort of terrific if America didn’t have to make nice with despots (House of Saud, Kuwait) and tinpot dictators (Chavez) and Russia just because they have something we need? If this can be done, not only do we acheive true energy independence, we can become a net exporter of energy technology.
Just because it’s hard, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to do it.
Theocracy (a03e6b) — 3/2/2010 @ 8:03 amI almost agree with Theocrat. My only problem with it is really a quibble, as it assume that the energy companies are not actively looking for cost-effective alternatives. Too bad Cap&Destroy is being pushed instead of common sense market-based solutions.
JD (7e5f44) — 3/2/2010 @ 8:36 amGovernment is not the solution but the problem. We already have the resources to not only be energy self sufficient but to be able to control or heavily influence world prices should oil dependent jerks get too out of line. The problem is our Democratic lawmakers and would be rulers preventing us from developing those resources. We could supply our own energy needs economically for decades to come, long enough to develop real long term alternative energy sources like fusion or geothermal. These require the kind of investment and research that come from a strong economy with available funding. Again we see our Democrat friends blocking this in every way they can.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/2/2010 @ 8:38 amI think we have seen that if the government directs the research we will see decisions made for political and venal reasons rather than what works or would be best for the country.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/2/2010 @ 8:42 am“The problem is our Democratic lawmakers and would be rulers preventing us from developing those resources. We could supply our own energy needs economically for decades to come, long enough to develop real long term alternative energy sources like fusion or geothermal”
This is correct, but the real reason behind that and the problem of not utilizing our resources is the progressive (almost religious) eco-terrorists and their armies of lawyers.
Oil Companies and others in the energy business have to have full time legal staffs and lawyers in order to fight to open up each and every lease they obtain (if somehow they are able to obtain it)and to keep it open long enough to actually drill and recover their investment.
There are thousands upon thousands of open legal cases right now being fought to try and use our American resources. Many of the ones that are public are just the tip of the iceberg. Until this hateful semi-religious menace to our Republic can be neutralized, we will never be energy independent.
Papa Ray
Papa Ray (4091d1) — 3/2/2010 @ 9:23 amPapa Ray,
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:06 amYou are right of course but this is just one element of the enemy’s assault on the Republic. The lawmakers could and have given protection from such abuse to such projects when they chose to. This is a wink, wink, collaboration among leftest groups to which the Democrats are pandering. The one role government does have in this field is the protection of industry and innovators. They are taking the other side instead. Looters.
I think nuclear energy is the obvious answer, too, but I’m not holding my breath.
I think nuclear energy has a lot to say for it, and suspect that replacing coal with nuclear would be a net win for the environment.
I also think that if we’re going to be burning natural gas, having a larger number of low-volume decentralized production facilities – eg, placing gas plants in the middle of towns and cities to create power locally – would be an improvement; a substantial amount of energy is lost in transmission, and that cost is one we could easily avoid if localities were less prone to saying “not in my backyard”.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:09 amI see nuclear plants as a bridge solution to supply energy while better solutions are developed. It should certainly be done. Coal is cheap and abundant. If we don’t want to burn it then we should use it to produce synthetic fuel. Coal and oil shale don’t yield high octane gas but can fuel homes, power plants, ships, trucks, trains and most other energy needs leaving plenty of oil and natural gas for cars and piston engined planes.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/2/2010 @ 10:20 amSaw this article in National Geographic about small reactors designed specifically to serve small municipalities. The cost, footprint, safety, automated-operation, and small impact on the power gird are some of the suggested advantages. IIR, these reactors are modeled after the nuclear reactors on naval submarines.
Apparently, there are developmental efforts in a number of countries (cannot recall if any were in the US, which to me is ironic, if true). Indeed, Japan may have found its first customer:
Pons Asinorum (95faa4) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:05 amPons:
These type of nuclear batteries are going to be a huge boon if they catch on.
For security reasons, having a distributed base of power generation rather than central locations disperses the number of targets (thinking of both terrorist and nation vs. nation warfare.) The self-contained reactors I’ve looked at have relatively small amounts of fairly inert fissile material, which would make it less attractive as a dirty bomb.
For financing purposes, a 30-year lifespan is just fantastic for municipal bond financing. I’d be interested in seeing some cost projections on these to see how they shake down against the current methods of energy production. Centralized production in big plants/dams/wind farms creates HUGE infrastructure costs and problems in its disbursement methods (i.e. powerline networks could be largely limited to municipalities, with only a few backup lines running between locations for emergency supplementary use.)
Hadlowe (30df33) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:36 amHadlowe – such systems also increase the risk / cost involved in waste disposal, which is not a negligible concern.
I expect these to catch on in the third world; in the first world, where we often can’t seem to build a condo complex on an empty field in less than five years due to local political opposition, their use will remain infrequent for the forseeable future.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/2/2010 @ 11:46 amHeh, which is why we need a space elevator. (Hey, I’m talking about adopting nuclear power across the country, so might as well dream big, right?) I am all for dropping expended fissile material into the sun’s gravity well, mostly just for the coolness factor of nuking the sun.
Hadlowe (30df33) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:02 pmHadlowe, great idea; I didn’t even think about that. Tax free munies coupled with a revenue-generating infrastructure investment. No federal money at all and no strain for the local taxpayers.
You and me both. I was reading this article while in the waiting room for my appointment, and just cannot recall these numbers (or even if they were given).
Now, I wish I had paid better attention.
Pons Asinorum (95faa4) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:08 pmI believe that wind and solar are usually backed up by gas driven turbines, rather than coal, because they are far more responsive. Other than that quibble, SdB is right on target, you have to have full conventional generation capacity anyway, because sometime the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine (usefully). Check out the EIA’s 2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, compared to wind and solar, nuclear power is cheap.
LarryD (feb78b) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:11 pmComment by Pons Asinorum — 3/2/2010 @ 11:05 am
I want one for the basement!
AD - RtR/OS! (ad40ca) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:13 pm(@30 Hadlowe) Heh, which is why we need a space elevator.
Hadlowe!! Arthur C Clarke fan?
—
With a space elevator though, why not get some Helium 3 from the moon (as it is not exactly plentiful on the earth) and make a fusion reactor:
Deuterium + Helium3 yields 18.4 MeV.
US electrical consumption for 2007: 4,157 billion kW hr, which converts to 9.34E+31 MeV.
Since one reaction needs one Helium 3 isotope, the number of Helium 3 isotopes needed is:
This works out to about 25.4 tonnes of Helium 3 needed if the reactors were 100% efficient*. Using a reactor that is (arbitrarily) 10% efficient means 48.3 tonnes of helium 3 would be needed (I think).
I am not a scientist, but am an Arthur C Clarke fan 😉
*[Take the isotopic mass of Helium3 (u), convert to molar mass (g / mol), convert to mass (g), convert units to kg, then finally convert to weight (tonnes); probably a much, much simpler way and apologies for any math errors — will blame excel].
Pons Asinorum (95faa4) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:44 pmNuclear waste is “spent” fuel, which is actually only partially consumed, it’s the build up of certain waste products that require the fuel elements be removed from 3d generation reactors. Since so little of the potential energy has been extracted, the solutions are; a) reprocess, or b) deeper burn. Long term I favor the molten salt reactor (MSR), which can be developed to use depleted uranium, unenriched uranium, or thorium as fuel. Fissile material is only needed to start up a MSR. With a deep burn 4th generation reactor, there is no long term waste storage issue.
LarryD (feb78b) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:46 pm(@33 AD) I want one for the basement!
Me too, but my Mrs said no.
Pons Asinorum (95faa4) — 3/2/2010 @ 12:51 pmHelium 3 works too, but you do lose the whole “nuking the sun” part.
If you haven’t seen the low budget “Moon”, with Sam Rockwell, Helium 3 mining is the background engine of the film. Highly recommend it.
I hadn’t really looked into the feasibility of the He3 formula before, but most of the future tech energy solutions floating about posit some level of technology that follows Arthur C. Clarke’s third law, and appears to be magic (e.g. space elevator has problems with electric conductivity between atmosphere layers and material with impossible tensile strength; He3 reaction requires a reaction chamber with temperatures approaching a billion Kelvin, etc.)
I’m actually somewhat more hopeful that we can find a means of energy transference that doesn’t involve the horribly inefficient energy conversions we use now. Chemical to heat to kinetic to electric energy. So much wasted potential.
Ah physics jokes, I love ’em.
Hadlowe (061332) — 3/2/2010 @ 2:28 pmSo much wasted potential.
Heh
Pons Asinorum (95faa4) — 3/2/2010 @ 3:44 pm