California Solar Provides 5 Percent of Electricity

Subtitle:  Solar is Growing in Vacant Desert Land

A few facts on grid-scale solar energy in California, and other states.  This is from The US Energy Information Agency, March 2015.  see link  Title: "California first state to generate more than 5% of electricity from utility-scale solar."

California and other states Solar energy 

Excerpt:  "California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly. California's utility-scale (1 megawatt (MW) or larger) solar plants generated a record 9.9 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2014, an increase of 6.1 million MWh from 2013. California's utility-scale solar production in 2014 was more than three times the output of the next-highest state, Arizona, and more than all other states combined.

"Several large plants were phased into operation in California during 2014, including two 550 MW solar photovoltaic plants, Topaz and Desert Sunlight (Phases 1 and 2), as well as the 377 MW Ivanpah (Phases 1, 2, and 3) and the 250 MW Genesis solar thermal plants. In total, nearly 1,900 MW of new utility-scale solar capacity was added, bringing the state's utility-scale capacity for all solar technologies to 5,400 MW by the end of 2014."

And to those who argue that California also has the highest electricity prices in the US, that is simply incorrect.  California residential electricity price is approximately 17 cents per kWh in early 2016, with 8 other states having a higher price.   California's high prices are due in part to the large population (39 million people) and low electricity consumption per capita.  The utilities must bill more per kWh to pay for the infrastructure.   Peak demand is approximately 45,000 MW, while average demand is only 33,000 MW.  

The wind resources in California are fairly good, but are limited to few locations.  These are almost fully developed at this point.  However, the vacant desert land is enormous in extent, and has yet to have most of the free sunshine harvested and converted to inexhaustible electricity. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Wind Energy Subsidy in Perspective

Subtitle:  Wind Subsidy is Less Than One-Tenth of One Percent

Data from EIA for 2015

The subsidy for wind-turbine projects in the US is somewhat controversial, and has been the topic of a few articles on SLB.  This article takes the actual data for wind-turbine electricity and total electricity in the US in 2015 and puts the subsidy in perspective. 

The usual claim from the anti-wind pundits is that the US spends billions every year to subsidize an industry that is on life-support, and should be cut off from all subsidies.  

The reality is as shown in the pie-chart at the right, the average retail electricity price in the US in 2015 was 12 cents per kWh, and the wind subsidy made up 0.09 cents of that.   In percentage terms, wind subsidy is only 0.75 percent of the electric bill.   That is less than one part in one hundred; it is more like one part in 140.  

But, the US electricity market is huge, so the tiny subsidy actually does amount to approximately $4 billion in 2015.  That comes in the form of a tax credit on the federal tax bill for each of the qualifying wind-turbine owners.   Note that, if the business made no profit, there is no tax credit.  For a profitable enterprise like Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet's company, the tax credits work quite well.  But, if a wind-turbine energy company breaks even or has a loss, they obtain no value from the tax credit.  Therefore, the maximum the government "paid out" would be the $4 billion.  In reality, it was likely less.  Also, tax credits are not a payment from the government to the company, they simply reduce the federal tax bill, so the government receives slightly less in tax revenues. 

Now for the numbers, with almost all data obtained from the US Energy Information Agency, the EIA.  Total wind-energy produced for 2015 was 190,127 GWh. Approximately 90 percent of that was obtained by wind-turbines that are 10 year old or newer.  Those wind-turbines, installed in the previous 10 years, receive the federal tax credit of 23 $/MWh.  On consistent basis, the wind energy was 190,127,000 MWh.   Total tax credits then is $3.9 billion (23 x 190,127,000 x 0.9 divided by 1 billion)

The total US electricity production in 2015 was 4 million GWH (4.087 million to be precise).  The average residential electricity price was 12 cents per kWh.   

However, the situation is far less dire than that shown above.  If everyone's electric bill increased by 0.75 percent, and the bill was $100 per month, the increase would be only 75 cents per month.   But, the money does not flow that way.   The consumer's tax bill does not increase to pay the wind subsidy.  

The federal government borrows money at the margins to pay for spending programs.  Much of the government revenue is from taxes, both personal and corporate, but another substantial part is from issuing debt instruments, or borrowing.  The wind subsidy of only $4 billion per year is borrowed from investors that purchase treasury bonds and other government notes.  The government pays only the interest on those bonds and notes, presently 2 percent per year.   Therefore, the true cost to the government for the wind subsidy is only 2 percent of $4 billion, or approximately $80 million.    In practical terms, the wind subsidy is almost nothing in a federal budget of $3.8 trillion.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Two More Nuclear Plants to Shutdown in US

Subtitle:  Another One Bites The Dust

It does not come as a surprise.  Two more aging, money-losing nuclear plants, this time in Illinois, are threatened to be closed if government does not provide even more subsidies.  Per the Wall Street Journal see link, Exelon is to close the Clinton and the Quad Cities nuclear power plants if the legislation is not passed.   UPDATE 6/2/2016: - Clinton to close on June 1, 2017.   Quad Cities to close one year later, June 1, 2018 -- RES. 

"According to Exelon, Clinton and Quad Cities have lost more than $800 million over the past six years. . .  Exelon said some nuclear plants are at risk of closing because wholesale energy prices are at a 15-year low. "

These two join the list that includes Pilgrim, and FitzPatrick nuclear plants that were subjects of recent articles on SLB and their imminent closure.   In every case, the reasons given are the same: the nuclear plants are losing money and are unable to compete in the electricity market.  

Clinton

What is more interesting about the Clinton nuclear power plant is that it is only 29 years old, which is relatively young for a retiring nuclear plant.   The plant started operations in 1987.  (It will be barely 30 years old upon shutdown in 2017) 

Quad Cities

The Quad Cities nuclear power plant is 43 years old, having started operations in 1973.  This age is much more typical of the nuclear plants that shut down.   (It will be 45 years old upon shutdown in 2018, making it the grand old man of US nuclear power.   If it makes it that far, that is. ) 

Commentary

In the big picture, one can expect that an average of 5 to 6 nuclear power plants will shut down each year over the next two decades.  This is based on the age of the nuclear power plants, their inability to run profitably, and the high cost to modify the plants to increase revenues.   

The US nuclear reactors are approximately 35 years old on average, with many reactors past 40 years.   With the revolution in electricity generation brought about by low-price for natural gas, which is now less than $2 per million Btu, and tremendous increases in wind-turbine electricity, wholesale power prices are very low.  Wind-turbine energy now (as of early 2016) matches and sometimes exceeds the electricity produced by hydroelectric dams.  In this market, many nuclear power plants run at a loss, as Exelon stated above: $800 million loss over the past six years. 

The nuclear plants, perhaps, could be modified with sufficient ingenuity and money to operate more profitably.  The major problem to such a plan is the short life after the modifications are made.  One could, for example, invest $400 to $800 million in a nuclear plant to uprate it, or produce more power.   Some plants have done this.  The twin-reactor plant in California at San Onofre tried to do this a few years ago, with disastrous results.  The new equipment, four high pressure steam generators, developed leaks and sent radioactive steam into the skies above Southern California.   Both reactors were then permanently shut down.  But, even if the modifications work as planned, the plant owners have only a few years to recover the investment before the plant is shut down due to other parts requiring replacement.   Nuclear plants were designed for 40 years of operation.  Even though the NRC typically grants every request to extend the operating license to 60 years, the plants must continue to meet all safety requirements.  

Cries for Subsidy

The cries for more subsidies are falling on deaf ears, which is as it should be.  Nuclear power plants already enjoy more subsidies than any other industry one can name.  As written before on SLB, nuclear plants in the US have at least six forms of government subsidy, indemnity from harm from radiation releases, government guaranteed construction loans, protection from most lawsuits during construction, safety regulations relaxed to allow plants to continue to operate, laws passed to obtain construction funds from existing consumers, and direct payment of 2.3 cents per kWh for all power sold for the first 10 years from a new nuclear power plant.   Now, the plant owners are threatening plant closure if more subsidies are not provided.  (6/2/2016, the legislature failed to pass any new subsidies for the nuclear plants, so they are to close as stated above. ) 

Conclusion

Shutting down nuclear power plants will become routine, common-place.  The growth industry will be nuclear plant decommissioning.   It is expected that 50 to 60 nuclear reactors will be shut down and decommissioning started over the next decade.   Between 30 to 40 more plants will be shut down in the subsequent decade.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Gravity Grid-Scale Storage System Using Trains

Subtitle:  A New Approach to Grid-Scale Energy Storage

There are several different technologies for storing electricity, or the functional equivalent, at grid-scales.  The most common is pumped storage hydroelectric, also the list includes batteries of various designs, super-capacitors, high-speed flywheels, compressed air energy storage, and molten materials of various compositions.  

A new system caught my attention this week, by Ares North America see link,  that uses excess power from the grid to power

Figure from Ares' Biological Assessment Report (2016) 

electric locomotives pulling heavy rail cars up a hill to a holding yard.  When power is needed on the grid, the locomotives and train of heavy cars rolls back down the hill to another storage yard.  The downhill journey has the brakes on, with the brakes being electric motor/generators that operate in generator mode.   The company has patents for the system. 

The first project received environmental approval about one week ago, and is to be built in Nevada just west of Las Vegas near the town of Pahrump.   The project is to have 50 MW capacity, but only 12.5 MWh of storage.   The local grid is the California Independent System Operator, CAISO.  Ares Nevada will provide load-leveling to CAISO.  

The train has two electric locomotives and rail cars loaded with a large concrete block for weight.  Power is provided via an overhead catenary system.   A bit of quick math shows that, for a 5.5 mile long track, and one train, the train speed is approximately 20-25 mph.  One must allow some distance for stopping at each end.  

Advantages of such a system are readily apparent, compared to other forms of energy storage.  No water is required, nor is a lake at a high elevation and another at a low elevation.   An Ares gravity storage system can be built anywhere there is a sufficient slope.  Those who advocate for wind-turbines in the UK, for example, may be having a look over the various hills and low mountains in that country.   Spain may also have a keen interest.  Germany, too, although the mountains are far from the industrial areas. 

Ares also lists advantages as no emissions, no fossil fuels required, no water required, no hazardous wastes produced, no harmful extraction of minerals, and no adverse decommissioning required to restore the land.  The system is also claimed to be easily scalable and expandable, and cost approximately 60 percent of a similar-sized pumped storage hydroelectric system.   

I would add these advantages: nothing to blow up, no dams to burst with fatal flooding, no danger of catching fire, no wildlife harmed, slow speed, quiet operation, no high pressure to leak or blow out, and well-proven principles. 

This appears to be a viable solution to grid-scale energy storage.   It is one to watch.  It would be useful in areas where wind-energy is great at night during periods of low demand.  One can easily imagine such systems all along the Front Range of the US Rocky Mountains, with the high end in the foothills, and the track running east into the plains.  The great wind corridor in the US, from north Texas to the Canadian border, could have the wind energy stored when necessary via the gravity storage systems, then returned to the grid as needed.  

As engineers would say, That's pretty slick. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Gas Turbine Power Plant - Low Cost and Renewable Friendly

Subtitle: CCGT at One-tenth That of Nuclear

A few weeks ago, Siemens AG announced the award of an $800-plus million turnkey contract to supply a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plant to produce 940 MW for Lordstown, Ohio.   The new power plant is to have a 2-1 configuration, with two gas

Aerial view of a CCGT near Houston, TX
with 2 gas turbines (upper right) and 1 steam turbine
Dedicated cooling tower is at lower left

turbines supplying heat to a heat recovery steam generator that provides steam to a steam turbine.  Each gas turbine and the steam turbine have their own generators.  From the news release (see link):

"Siemens will deliver a complete power plant solution for the (Lordstown) facility, which will feature the record-breaking H-class (gas turbine) technology designed for fast, flexible operation to support renewable integration. The scope of supply includes two gas turbines, one steam turbine and three generators. Slated for operation in summer 2018..."

A bit of math shows that the plant's capital cost is approximately $900 per kW, which is less than one-tenth that of a new nuclear power plant (those costing upwards of $10,000 per kW).   The construction time is also a bit more than two years, which compares more than favorably to a nuclear power plant that typically requires ten years or more.    This power plant is essentially the same size as a new nuclear power plant, with 940 MWe compared to a Westinghouse AP-1000 of 1100 MWe.  


And importantly, the CCGT plant will achieve a bit more than 60 percent thermal efficiency.  The heat rate (LHV) is 5690 Btu/kWh.  

Also, the plant will have design and control system features to provide load-following so that renewable energy systems can be more easily integrated into the grid.    In the Ohio-Pennsylvania region, the renewable energy is mostly wind-turbines. 

The plant is located between Cleveland, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania near the states' border.  The local grid is the PJM, a major grid on the US East Coast.  PJM has wind-turbine resources that can produce in excess of 5,000 MW.  see link to PJM website.

This is exactly as predicted on SLB. (see link)  This is the future of Midwest and East Coast generation, as coal power plants are retired, nuclear power plants are retired, and CCGT with wind-turbines are installed.  

UPDATE:  The installation of CCGT for power production is nothing new; that is not the point of this article.  Such plants have been built for decades, including the one in the photo above, which was built in 1980 in a chemical plant near Houston, Texas.  The pictured CCGT actually has a much higher thermal efficiency of more than 80 percent because the steam to the chemical plant is provided from the steam turbine.    

This article is primarily a reference to show to the nay-sayers (and they are legion) that modern CCGT plants are being ordered and built, they cost less than $1000 per kW, they do have 60 percent or higher efficiency, and they are specifically designed to complement the variable output of wind-turbines.  

One minor point was corrected in this update: the CCGT for Lordstown's construction period is a bit more than 2 years, not a bit less.  --- end Update. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

The Real Hockey Stick Graph - Wind Power

Subtitle: US Wind Power Increasing Rapidly 

There is a discredited graph in climate science that purports to show the past 1000 years of Earth's global average temperature was very flat, until the past 40 years more or less, when a large upturn occurred.  The long unchanging period is supposed to look like the handle of a hockey stick, with the upturned portion appears to be the blade.  

However, a valid hockey-stick graph is shown at right, which is the past few decades of grid-scale electric power produced in the US from hydroelectric dams (blue line) and from wind-

turbines (orange line).   The significance of this graph is that wind-turbines now produce a significant portion of the total power to the grid, an amount equal to that of hydroelectric dams.   Future wind-turbine installations will add to the wind's contribution, so that it exceeds the hydroelectric contribution.  

For those who say that wind energy is too small to matter, it is growing rapidly.  If wind is too small to matter, then perhaps hydroelectricity is also too small to matter.   Both represent approximately 5 to 6 percent of the total power generated in the US.  

For those who complain that wind energy is subsidized, the reality is that wind turbine projects receive only a small subsidy, of 2.3 cents per kWh sold for the first 10 years of operation. Wind-farm owners must put up their own money or borrow the money to purchase and install the turbines, lease the land, pay for operations and maintenance, and collect the electricity and connect to the grid.    In contrast, more than 70 percent of all hydroelectric dams and generation plants were built entirely with federal funds, a 100 percent subsidy.  Yet, nobody complains that hydroelectric power should be stopped.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

US Power Grid Transitioning

Subtitle:  Wind Energy Climbing Fast

A few things occurred recently that have already shifted the way power in the US is generated.  These are most certainly a preview of things to come.  This article explores some of the issues. 

A key point is that two things most certainly will occur over the next ten years: first, many nuclear power plants are reaching the end of their economic lives and will be shut down, probably 50 to 60 of the existing 100 reactors; and second, many of the coal-fired power plants will shut down due to inability to comply with environmental regulations, plus a lack of coal to keep running, as coal is expected to run out within 20 years in the US.   The power produced by those two categories must be replaced.  The question is, what energy source is ready, economic, and can be built within that time frame?

For a bit of perspective, 30 years ago the US power mix included the following, and the relative percentages of the total electricity provided:

US Electricity in 1986
Source     Percent

Coal	55.6
Nuclear	16.6
Hydro	11.8
Nat Gas	10.0
Oil	5.5
Wind	-

Coal was the main energy source in 1986, with nuclear a distant second.    The situation has changed dramatically by 2015, 30 years later.

US Electricity in 2015

Source     Percent

Coal	33.18
Nat Gas	32.66
Nuclear	19.50
Hydro	6.14
Wind	4.70
Oil	0.70

Coal is still the main energy source, but only barely as natural gas is a very, very close second.  Nuclear has slipped to third position.  Wind has increased from almost zero in 1986 to almost the same percentage as hydroelectric.  Oil use has dropped to almost zero.  

US Electricity Generation by Resource Type -- EIA

Here is a graph of US power production since 2001, by energy source, from EIA.  The graph has a number of interesting aspects, including almost no increase in total electricity use (blue line) over the past decade.  

Notable items are the merging of the coal (brown) and natural gas (green) lines in 2015.  Also notable is the merging of the hydroelectric (purple) and wind (black) lines in 2015.  Finally, and a subject for another post, the nuclear (yellow) line is not at all constant but has substantial fluctuations.  

The output of wind energy nationwide has now grown to equal that of hydroelectric power.  The future will without a doubt see wind energy increase and surpass hydroelectric.   The

Add caption

next chart shows how wind energy production (orange line) has grown over the decades, along with hydroelectric power production (blue line).  The data is also from EIA, for the US only, and shows the growth of wind energy so that the two lines merge in 2015.   The future will almost certainly have wind energy surpassing hydroelectric, as there are no substantial increases in hydroelectric dam construction, but wind-turbines are being built at a rapid pace in many states. 

Similarly, the next chart shows the US electricity production from coal (brown line) and from natural gas (green line), with coal production declining recently as natural gas production increases to match that of

coal.   As more and more coal-powered plants are closed in the coming decades, and clean-burning natural gas power plants are built in greater numbers, natural gas-derived power will easily surpass that from coal. 

Future Energy Sources

As stated before on SLB, great changes are coming for the US electricity grid, and soon.  Environmental regulations that prohibit toxic air emissions, and a lack of long-term supply are driving the closure of coal-fired power plants.   Also, the simple passing of years is making the US nuclear plants exceed their 40-year design lives, and many are shutting down before that benchmark as they can no longer compete to produce power profitably in the market.   Being old, they would require massive capital infusions to retain the level of safety required by the NRC, but they have too few years of life remaining to recoup those costs.  In the next decade, one can expect to see dozens, perhaps 50 or 60 nuclear plants shut down in the US.    Presently, nuclear produces approximately 65,000 to 70,000  GWh/month from 100 operating reactors. 

Fortunately, the US has more than sufficient wind resources to meet the power demand, as nuclear and coal plants are retired.   Some critics assert that wind is too variable, too unreliable to meet the grid's needs, but there are several answers to that.  First, existing natural gas power plants operate at only 29 percent capacity on an annual basis, or 29 percent capacity factor (per EIA data).   On days that have less than peak loads, which typically occur only in the hottest summer months, the existing natural gas power plants can increase output.  More natural gas power plants are required, though that is but one option, to meet the demand on the hottest days.  Another option is grid-scale storage, which can be accomplished by offshore pumped storage hydroelectric (PSH), or by the new polyacetylene batteries that were announced recently.   Yet another option is to store off-peak power, no matter what produces that power, in shore-based PSH plants as the Japanese did on Okinawa Island.  That PSH plant uses the ocean as the lower reservoir, and pumps seawater up into an artificial, lined lake on higher ground near the shore.  

Practicality

It must be noted that powering a grid with little coal and nuclear has already been done, with California an example, but there are others.  Presently, with only two reactors operating in California (at the Diablo Canyon plant), nuclear produces approximately 5 to 10 percent of the grid's needs.   As today for example, the California grid had a minimum demand at approximately 4:00 a.m. of 20 GW, and the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant was producing 2 GW, as it stubbornly refuses to reduce output even though demand is low.   During peak summer demand, which typically is approximately 45 GW, nuclear is a bit less than 5 percent.  Wind energy in California is modest, providing only approximately 15 percent of the grid's daily needs when the wind is strongest and demand is low, such as occurs in April weekends.  But, other states have much more wind as a percent of their overall power, with Iowa leading the nation at the moment at just over 31 percent of electricity produced by wind in 2015.  South Dakota had 25 percent, Kansas had 24 percent, and others are in double-digits.  

The future is more wind-turbines in states with sufficient wind resources (but not California, where there is much un-tapped solar in the desert).  The future is also more natural gas power plants.  The future also has far fewer nuclear and coal plants.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyrignt © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved