Wind vs Coal - Coal Cannot Go Ten Rounds

Subtitle: Coal Fizzles Out in Fifty Years - Wind Blows Forever 

It appears I struck deep at the heart of the anti-wind crowd [on JoNova's excellent blog]. It’s a pleasure to cross swords (or words). I’ll ignore the infantile insults about lawyers – I’m a chemical engineer who also practices law.

Background: on an open thread at JoNova's blog, somebody started a rant on anti-wind and praising baseload coal power.  Not surprising, actually, given the huge coal reserves in Australia (JoNova is in Australia).  Several statements that were mis-direction were made, and I took keyboard in hand to offer a different perspective.  Here is what I wrote for my second comment.  The first is also on display at JoNova's site.   The gist of their argument (several people "down-thumbed my comment!) is that no coal-fired power plant has ever been replaced by a wind-farm.  True, I agree.  But, that is totally irrelevant.   That's like saying no 5-year old who plays Tee-ball in Little League has ever hit a home run in Major League Baseball.  True, but then give him a few years to grow up, get stronger, and more experience.   See what happens then.   Here is the comment:

Wind energy is not designed (yet) to replace any coal-fired plants. I suspect you would not expect a diesel-powered dump truck to compete and win at a Formula One race. The truck is not designed to compete in that arena. Why, then, are wind-energy projects expected to replace a coal-fired plant? The current wind-energy systems do exactly what they are designed to do: they produce power when the wind blows, as efficiently and as economically as their design and location allow. As for requiring fossil-fueled backup, even hydroelectric plants require backup for periods of drought. Should all the dams be torn down and the hydroelectric plants shut down?

The fact is that wind energy is in the teen-ager portion of the life development curve, with unit costs steadily declining as the industry matures, and experience is gained with larger turbines. Capacity Factors are rather good, as I noted above, for recent and future projects.

Costs actually are steadily declining, as Warren Buffett observed when he placed his recent order for $1 billion (US) for wind turbines in Iowa.

Coal may be great (for now), but notice what China’s rapid increase in coal consumption has done to the world reserves. The previous 200-year reserve lifetime has decreased to 90 to 100 years. When China doubles their coal-fired generating capacity, as they intend to, and India also ramps up their consumption, the coal reserves world-wide will decrease to perhaps 40 to 50 years. Sobering, isn’t it? Sure, Australia has much of the remaining reserves, and good on ya for that. Enjoy the sales — for 50 years. After that, what will Australia do for power? Harness kangaroos and make them jump against rubber bands? PETA might have a problem with that.

It would be far, far better to slide off the coal-fired bandwagon and begin cheering for the infinitely renewable side. Those of you who are under 30 years of age will live to see the end of coal. It will not be pretty.

Wind’s problems are already solved. Larger turbines, better sites with stronger and more steady wind, and pumped storage using underwater hollow spheres (the MIT solution) are no pie-in-the-sky, these are realities.

My recent article gives a view of future energy systems, including the integrated wind with storage system:

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/long-term-energy-supply.html

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Marina del Rey, California

Offshore Windturbines in Texas

Offshore wind technology gets a boost in Texas, as Governor Rick Perry awarded funds for the Texas Emerging Technology Fund at the Wind Energy Center at Texas A&M University.  The fund will lead to 18 MW of offshore windturbines.  see link  This is bad news for nuclear power, which cannot compete against wind energy.  

Windturbine using tension-leg anchoring system
credit: NREL

The windturbines will likely be place offshore from Corpus Christi, which has good and steady wind.  

From the article: 
"Texas A&M will collaborate with Texas Tech University, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi and the University of Texas at Brownsville to develop new turbine and platform technology for offshore use."

The Gulf of Mexico, especially that part just offshore from Texas, has many hundreds of oil and gas platforms.  These structures make excellent bases for wind turbines, and reduce the cost of offshore wind installations.   The platforms could also serve as an anchoring point for seabed energy storage systems, such as that described recently by researchers at MIT. see link.  

The energy storage would be via submerged hollow spheres made of concrete, which are vented to the atmosphere.  At night and other periods of low power demand, the energy from offshore windturbines pump seawater out of the spheres.  During peak demand, or when the wind speed is too low to produce power, seawater flows into the spheres via conventional hydroelectric turbines connected to generators.   The hydroelectric mode could also be employed when storms occur, and the windturbines must be stopped for their own protection. 

NREL research published in 2010 estimated that US offshore wind can produce 4,000 GW of energy. see link  If only 10 percent of that were to be installed, that would be the equivalent of 400 full-size nuclear power plants.  The US currently has 100 nuclear power plants.  Also, if the offshore wind resource produces only 30 percent of the installed capacity on an annual basis, the amount of wind energy would be the 120 GW, or roughly 20 percent of the entire electric power consumed in the US.  With seabed energy storage as described above, this power would be reliable, dispatchable, and load-following when required.   The numbers could easily be doubled, or tripled.   With quadrupled values, that is, 40 percent of the offshore potential installed, that wind resource would supply 80 percent of the US's power needs.  Onshore wind supplying 10 percent, and hydropower supplying 10 percent would make the US completely renewable in electric power.  

Criticism

Some will doubt the ability of the windturbines to reliably and affordably produce electric power.  However, the combination of existing offshore platforms and wind turbines greatly reduces the installation cost.  The use of submerged spheres for storage also greatly increases the price the utilities would pay for the power.  

Conclusion

This is the type of future energy research that must be applauded.  As we say in Texas, way to fire, Governor!  Way to fire...

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

California PUC Orders Replacement Power for Shut Down Nuclear Plant

California Public Utility Commission requires two utilities in Southern California to procure power that is either renewable, demand response resources, or energy efficiency to replace that which was removed when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was closed due to premature tube failure.  Also, at least 75 MW of the new power must be from storage systems.  

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre, California
source: wikipedia

More on this later, as this requires some contemplation, research, and reflection.   Text of the press release follows.  (see link for press release)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE 
Media Contact: Terrie Prosper, 415.703.1366, news@cpuc.ca.gov Docket #: R.12-03-014


CPUC ACTS TO ENSURE ENERGY RELIABILITY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO, March 13, 2014 - The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in its 
ongoing mission to ensure safe and reliable utility service to customers, today directed Southern 
California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to procure energy supplies to meet 
Southern California needs, including from preferred resources (such as renewable power, Demand 
Response resources, and energy efficiency) or energy storage. 

SCE was ordered to procure between 500 and 700 megawatts (MW), and SDG&E to procure 
between 500 and 800 MW by 2022 to meet local capacity needs stemming from the retired San 
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 

Said Commissioner Mike Florio, who is the assigned Commissioner for the Long-Term Procurement 
Proceeding, “This groundbreaking decision begins the process of acquiring new resources to replace 
the 2,200 megawatts that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station would have supplied. It 
authorizes SCE and SDG&E to procure up to 1,500 megawatts of new resources, at least 600 
megawatts of which must be from California’s preferred resources, namely renewable power, 
Demand Response resources, and energy efficiency. The CPUC and the utilities will work to ensure 
going forward that preferred resources can provide not just clean energy, but the essential reliability 
services that are needed to ensure a stable and reliable grid. This will put us firmly on the path 
toward meeting California’s greenhouse gas reduction goals by eventually phasing out the use of 
fossil fuels to generate electricity.” 

Added CPUC President Michael R. Peevey, “This action helps us move forward in meeting the electricity needs of Southern California now that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is 
permanently closed. Our combination of preferred resources and some more conventional generation 
will help in making a more secure energy future for Southern California consumers.” 

Said Commissioner Catherine J.K. Sandoval, “The shutdown of San Onofre was significant and 
unforeseen, but opened up opportunities for new technologies to take its place. Up to 1,500 
megawatts of the generation authorized to replace San Onofre can come from energy efficiency, 
Demand Response, renewable energy, and energy storage, in line with California’s vision for a 
healthier environment and economic sustainability. This decision provides flexibility while fulfilling 
the CPUC’s duty to ensure safe and reliable service at just and reasonable rates.” 

Said Commissioner Michael Picker, “Keeping the lights on is not just about comfort; it’s about 
safety and it’s about keeping our economy strong. The procurement plan that the CPUC adopted 
today is prudent and necessary for San Diego and south Orange County as we move forward from 
San Onofre and close many of the very old, dirty, and faltering natural gas plants in the area.” 

Today’s decision, combined with prior CPUC decisions aimed at ensuring energy supplies for 

Southern California, brings a total of 1,900 to 2,500 megawatts to the L.A. Basin from SCE, up to 60 

percent of which may come from preferred resources. SDG&E is required to procure at least 25 

percent and up to 100 percent of new local capacity from preferred resources. SCE and SDG&E are 

required to procure at least 50 megawatts and 25 megawatts, respectively, from energy storage. The 

CPUC’s actions thus far will offset the retirement of the 2,200 megawatt San Onofre Nuclear 

Generating Station and nearly 5,900 megawatts of once-through cooling plants. 

 

A previous CPUC decision determined that it was not feasible to rely solely on preferred resources to 

meet local energy needs and that conventional gas-fired resources must also be utilized in order to 

ensure reliability. The CPUC said it strongly intends to continue pursuing preferred resources to the 

greatest extent possible, but must always ensure that grid operations are not potentially compromised 

by excessive reliance on intermittent resources and resources with uncertain ability to meet need. The 

CPUC’s ongoing Resource Adequacy proceeding is exploring the ability of various preferred 

resources and energy storage to meet needs. Until that time, the CPUC must take a prudent approach to reliability, which entails a gradual increase in the level of preferred resources and energy storage 

into the resource mix to historically high levels. 

 

The proposal voted on is available at 

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M088/K979/88979084.PDF. 

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

Texas Sets Wind Energy Record

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, ERCOT, said that at 8:48 p.m. Wednesday, March 26, 2014, wind farms connected to ERCOT’s transmission network generated a new high of

1.5 MW Turbine
photo: NREL

10,296 megawatts. The previous high was 9,689 megawatts.  ERCOT also said that at 3:14 a.m. Thursday, wind produced 38.4 percent of all the power on its grid, the highest share ever.  (link here)

With just over 12,000 MW installed capacity in Texas, the new peak in generation represents almost 86 percent of potential generation.  

Wind power is performing exactly as it is designed to do:  it produces power when the wind blows.  Critics scoff at wind power, saying it is unreliable and too costly because conventional generating plants must be built to carry the load when wind cannot.  That argument has no validity, because one cannot expect windturbines as presently designed and installed to serve as baseload or load-following generating systems.  At present, windturbines perform exactly as designed.  An analogy would be expecting a delivery truck to perform like a race car and win a Formula One race.  No rational people would ever expect a heavy delivery truck to win such a race.  The truck was designed for a completely different purpose.  How then, can windturbines be expected to provide baseload or load-following capability? 

Wind power will someday provide such power, but only when cost-effective, grid-scale energy storage is available.  Over time, wind energy economics will continue to decrease the cost to generate from wind, as economies of scale and economy from mass production continue to reduce costs.  Also, as more transmission lines are built, the economics of wind energy improve.  At some point very soon, the full production costs of wind energy (capital plus operating charges) will be low enough to begin justifying the high costs of grid-scale energy storage.  When the combined cost of wind energy generation plus grid-scale energy storage reach parity with conventional generation, the real boom in wind energy will begin.  

Grid-scale storage will allow power produced from windturbines to be stored as the power is generated, typically at night for on-shore systems.  Night power prices are usually low, so windturbine operators would prefer not to sell the power at night.  However, the next day, power prices increase.  The storage system will then release the stored power in a controlled manner, producing reliable, even load-following, power into the grid at high on-peak prices.  The drawback is that some energy is lost in the storage and release steps.   The overall economics will depend on the prices and energy losses.  

For now, the Texas windturbines are proving that wind energy is viable, wind energy works as designed. 

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

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/03/27/5687340/wind-power-sets-new-daily-records.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/03/27/5687340/wind-power-sets-new-daily-records.html#storylink=cpy

Energy Storage: Key to Renewables

What are the legal aspects and implications of grid-scale energy storage systems (ESS)? And, are there other legal issues for smaller-scale systems? This post will address those points.

The key legal issues involve pricing power from a renewable power plant such as wind, or solar, although there are many other types of systems. Without grid-scale energy storage, intermittent renewable power plants receive very low prices for their power, whereas with an effective ESS, the renewable plant’s power can receive a much higher price. Hence, there is much interest, activity, research, and investment in ESS.

With a smaller-scale ESS, legal issues include, but are not limited to, warranties for the equipment, liquidated damages for equipment failure, contract and tort damages for any harm caused by the equipment or failure to perform, and contractual issues with the utility for time-of-service power and reduction in demand charges.  

These are some of the legal issues presented by ESS. Next, a brief introduction to ESS and their interface with renewable power plants is presented.

Background on Energy Storage Systems

An upcoming 4-day symposium in San Diego will focus on Energy Storage; both on systems for storing electric power, and on the issues surrounding effective deployment of such systems.
The systems are generally divided into two categories: large and small, although that size division usually places the devices into two other categories, upstream or downstream of the customer’s electricity meter. Large devices are upstream, and small ones are downstream.
Within each category, there are a number of technologies offered for sale or currently in development. These technologies include advanced batteries, ultra-capacitors, superconducting systems, high-speed flywheels, compressed air energy storage, pumped hydroelectric, pressurized hydraulic storage, among others.

Large energy storage is the Holy Grail of renewable energy. Without energy storage, some renewable power systems are not economic, or barely economic, due to the lack of reliability. In a power grid sense, reliability signifies the power is available when needed, within the range of power production for that generating plant. There are many different technologies for generating power, and each has a different reliability factor. Those systems with high reliability include large hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, natural gas, geothermal, bio-gas, bio-mass, and landfill gas. Some include solar thermal with storage in the high reliability category, although that depends on the amount of storage and the usual days of sunshine.

Those systems with low reliability, and thus in great need of effective, economic storage, include wind, solar photo-voltaic, solar thermal, and wave. Each of these energy sources is very intermittent, with sudden shifts in energy production. Tidal energy is a slightly different case, as the tides at any location are predictable both in height and timing. However, energy storage is required because the energy demand on the grid seldom coincides with the generation provided by tidal systems.

The disparity between energy demand and energy supply from renewables creates the need for ESS. As an example, solar power plants typically are most effective from approximately 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., yet peak power demand may occur later than 4:00 p.m. Using California as an example, the projected peak demand for Sunday, May 3, 2009, is at 9:00 p.m., 5 hours after the 4:00 p.m. solar production cutoff time. For another example, wind power in California typically peaks at night due to the winds that blow from the ocean onto the land. There is little demand for power at night, however, as the minimum demand for the same date occurred at 3:00 a.m. From this, it may be seen that great advantages exist for an ESS that can store power when it is generated, and released to the grid when needed.

Legal Issues

Product pricing is a key issue for power plant owners, and the issue is more acute for renewable power plant owners. Utilities that purchase power from renewable power plants pay a low price for intermittent, unreliable power, and a higher price for stable, reliable power. Thus, a large hydroelectric plant with ample water in the reservoir will receive a higher price for its power because it is available when needed by the utility. A wind power plant will receive a low price for its power due to the inability of the wind plant owner to provide power when and as needed by the utility.

Another legal issue is receiving a permit to construct a renewable power plant. State-wide power generation planning and permitting also depends to some extent on the availability of power from the various plants. As an example, a Public Utility Commission may find that 2,000 MW of new power is required to meet the state’s growing demand. Most states have a renewable energy goal or law, such as California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires 20 percent renewables by 12/31/2010, and 33 percent by 2020. If a wind power plant is to supply 50 MW of that total new power, the state agencies must apply some factor to wind to account for the intermittent character. If wind power is assigned a factor of 25 percent, then 200 MW of wind power plants will be allowed and permitted. When and if an ESS is available for wind power, that factor would be reassessed.

Small-scale ESS have legal issues also. Back-up power supplies have been used for many years, especially for computer installations and emergency lighting. An economic incentive also exists for some consumers to reduce their peak usage, and thereby reduce their utility bills. An ESS may only be required for a few minutes of no power, until a backup generator is started and online. Yet, that few minutes may be critical to the consumer. Legal issues include contractual issues between the consumer and ESS provider, and between the consumer and the utility.

Still another legal issue arises with ESS that applies to permit issues with the local air quality district. If a sufficiently long-lasting ESS is available, running a diesel-powered backup generator during a power interruption is not required, thus providing additional benefits to the consumer. As an example, the consumer may create air pollution credits by not running the diesel engine, which can be banked for later internal use, or sold into the emission credit market. Negotiating with the air pollution district for proper emission credits requires legal expertise.

Also, in some utility markets such as Southern California, an incentive is offered to power consumers to allow the utility to curtail or shut off power during crisis peak demand periods. These usually occur on very hot days in Southern California. The incentive to the consumer is a lower power price in return for the utility shutting off power when needed to preserve the grid. An ESS can allow a consumer to take advantage of the incentive program, without losing productivity. An ESS will increase the number of consumers who are willing and able to take advantage of the incentive program.

Finally, under state global warming laws, such as California’s AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, ESS play a key role. As one example, the Renewable Portfolio Standard for California will be much easier to achieve when a renewable power plant owner can achieve higher power prices with an ESS. Higher power prices will attract more parties to invest in the renewable power plants.

Conclusion

Energy storage is a very timely topic, with many important ramifications for electric power consumers, power producers, utilities, state regulatory agencies, ESS manufacturers, and others. Each of the affected entities should obtain legal advice to assess their needs and opportunities in this growing, exciting, and important field.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Contact Mr. Sowell at his legal website.