Editor’s note: This commentary is by Willem Post, a retired engineer, who writes about energy issues, currently specializing in energy efficiency of buildings and building systems. He is a founding member of the Coalition for Energy Solutions.
[A]nnette Smith, the executive director of Vermonters for Clean Environment, writes: “ISO-NE’s 2014 electricity outlook projects based on public policy and economic choices being made now that in the future the grid mix will be 55% natural gas, 40% wind and 5% other.”
What will tomorrow’s energy mix look like? See ISO-New England 2014 Regional Energy Outlook, page 16.
Let us look at some numbers to see what it would take to implement the future energy mix mentioned in the ISO-NE report.
New England consumes about 125,000 GWh/year, of which Vermont’s consumption is about 5,600 GWh/year. With more mostly Japanese heat pumps and electric vehicles, those levels of consumption will drastically increase by a factor of 2 or 3, even with increased energy efficiency, according to Blittersdorf, Angwin, et al., a big increase in business for Vermont’s electric utilities, a big decrease in business for Vermont’s traditional heating and automotive sectors, as mandated by H-40 RESET.
From government records, we know, the New England annual average onshore, CF is about 0.26 for recent installations, and the annual average, offshore CF is assumed at 0.40; some installations are higher, others lower.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated
If Wind energy were 100 percent onshore: Number of onshore 63 MW Lowell Mountain systems required in New England = (40% x 125,000,000 MWh)/(8,760 hours/year x 0.26 x 63 MW) = 348 systems, of which Vermont ridge lines would have (5.6/125) x 348 = 16 systems. These systems, on 2,000-2,500 foot high ridgelines, must be near suitable capacity high voltage lines, to minimize grid disturbances.
Capital cost = 348 x 63 x $2,800,000/MW = $61 billion, plus about $15-$20 billion in grid upgrades, plus capital cost for changing (retiring, building new) the mix of the other generators to enable balancing the variable, intermittent energy, and to provide energy when wind energy is inadequate, including as low as 1 or 2 percent of energy on the NE system*. The wholesale cost of that wind energy would be about 10-15 cents/kWh.
(*Germany et al. have similar, low wind energy outputs during more or less unpredictable periods throughout a year.)
If wind energy were 50 percent Onshore + 50 percent Offshore @ CF = 0.40: Capital cost, 50% energy onshore + 50% offshore = 61/2 + $4,000,000/MW x (20% x 125,000,000)/(8,760 x CF 0.40) = 30.5 + 28.5 = $59 billion, plus about $15-$20 billion in grid upgrades, plus capital cost for changing (retiring, building new) the mix of the other generators to enable balancing the variable, intermittent energy, and to provide energy when wind energy is inadequate, including as low as 1 or 2 percent of energy on the NE system. The wholesale cost of that wind energy would be about 10-15 cents/kWh onshore, and 20-25 cents/kWh offshore (based on Cape Wind et al. projections), the mix would be 15-20 cents/kWh.
It is well known by the Vermont Department of Public Service, the Public Service Board, Green Mountain Power, Vermont Electric Cooperative and Rep. Tony Klein’s committee et al. the NEK would need at least $300 million of grid upgrades before significant variable, intermittent, grid disturbing, wind energy could be added.
Canadian hydro energy is a much better alternative: Getting much more, low-cost, near-CO2-free, steady (not variable, not intermittent) hydro energy from Quebec, New Brunswick and Labrador would involve about $5-$8 billion in new HVDC lines, no significant grid changes, no significant generator mix changes, plus that energy likely would be at 5-7 cents/kWh under 20-year, market-based*, contracts, per Robert Dostis of GMP, who knows these numbers better than most of us. A major long-term plus for the New England economy.
(*The annual average New England wholesale price has been about 5 cents/kWh for the past five years, and will likely not change much due to abundant nearby natural gas.)
Some comments on wind and solar energy: People should know by now, in New England:
• Wind energy is zero about 30 percent of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors), minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons, about 60 percent of all wind energy is generated at night.
• Solar energy is zero about 65 percent of the hours of the year, minimal early morning and late afternoon, minimal much of the winter, and near-zero with snow and ice on the panels.
• Often both are at near-zero levels during many hours of the year. (See http://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/, click on Renewables.)
• Germany has excellent public records for the past 12 years showing the variability and intermittency of wind and solar energy, i.e., denial/obfuscation of the facts is not an option.
That means, in Germany and in New England, all other existing generators must be kept in good running order, staffed, fueled, ready to go, to provide varying quantities of energy almost all hours of the year, including for balancing the variable solar and wind energy. The end result: Two energy systems to do one job!
The current Northeast Kingdom (NEK) grid is perfectly adequate to serve the NEK demands, but feeding variable (voltage, frequency, phase), intermittent wind energy into that grid would cause excessive instabilities, as was found with the Lowell project.
It is well known by the Vermont Department of Public Service, the Public Service Board, Green Mountain Power, Vermont Electric Cooperative and Rep. Tony Klein’s committee et al. the NEK would need at least $300 million of grid upgrades before significant variable, intermittent, grid disturbing, wind energy could be added. Just adding the cancelled Seneca system would have cost $86 million in grid upgrades. GMP had to spend a total of about $20 million to connect the Lowell system to the grid, including a $10.5 million synchronous-condenser system.
NOTE 1: Economically viable energy storage systems, other than hydro, have not yet been invented, and would take many billions of dollars and decades to deploy after they are invented. At present, using batteries for energy storage during the day and using it at night costs about 23 cents/kWh just for storage, per a David Hallquist study for the Department of Energy.
http://vtdigger.org/2013/04/07/vec-will-oppose-new-big-wind-projects-in-the-northeast-kingdom-ceo-hallquist-cites-curtailment-transmission-obstacles/
NOTE 2: Increasing the capacity, MW, of photovoltaic (PV) solar systems tied to a distribution grid will decrease its stability, because energy from PV solar systems significantly varies from minute to minute, especially during
variable-cloudy days, common in New England. Battery systems tied to the distribution grid are used in California and Germany to smooth excessive energy variations; they act as dampers. Such charging and discharging, each with about a 10 percent loss, has very little to do with storing energy now for later use, as is sometimes claimed. See NOTE 1.
