New Study Confirms Feasibility of Renewable Electricity

[ReeferMadness]

A new study has found that by connecting grids across North America, renewable energy could supply cheaper electricity with lower emissions without grid storage.

By switching to a national grid and more renewable power, electricity could actually get cheaper by 2030, while cutting emissions 80% compared to 1990 levels.

As we squabble over pipelines in Canada, study after study shows that they will be white elephants long before they are paid off. It's bad news indeed for those who deeply invested, financially or emotionally, in fossil fuels.

Since the switch to a nationwide grid would save an estimated $47 billion, that money could also be invested in new carbon-free tech. The cost of electricity would stay the same as it is today, but emissions would drop more. If the grid went even further—pulling in hydropower and other renewables from Canada—emissions could go even lower.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice try....the proposed "nationwide grid" is for the United States, not all of North America. Keep squabbling in Canada.

[TimG]

A new study has found that by connecting grids across North America, renewable energy could supply cheaper electricity with lower emissions without grid storage.

And it is complete nonsense developed by academics with no concept of engineering effort required to shunt power across long distances.

I looked up the credentials of the authors and found Meteorologists and a Mathematicians which means they know nothing about the topic they claim to write about (it is like asking your mechanic for medical advice).

To illustrate that nonsense of this study take this statement:

"But a new study suggests we don't actually need to store that power. Instead—because the wind is always blowing somewhere in the U.S., and a cloudy day in one city will be sunny elsewhere"

While this statement is trivially true at a continental scale it implies that every region (say the midwest) has to have enough capacity to not only supply its needs but the needs of other regions (say the eastern seaboard). This massive over capacity would be sitting idle most of the time since it would only be needed when the renewables fail in other regions. The cost of all of this redundancy would be astronomical.

More importantly, even if the the extra capacity existed it would have to be transported to other regions which implies an absolutely massive transmission grid capable of powering the entire region from a remote location. Such a grid would be many times larger and more expensive than the interconnects that exist today.

Hint: the cost of renewables does NOT come from the cost of installing solar panels or wind turbines. It comes from the huge infrastructure needed to compensate for their unreliability. So your 'grid parity' narrative is simply false. Repeating it ad-infinitum will not make it true.

Edited February 11, 2016 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Nice try....the proposed "nationwide grid" is for the United States, not all of North America. Keep squabbling in Canada.

You didn't read it all - read the second quote in my OP.

[bush_cheney2004]

You didn't read it all - read the second quote in my OP.

I read it...twice....nothing about Mexico either. Ain't gonna happen anyway. Please keep the crazy ideas and squabbling over how to implement them in Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

I read it...twice....nothing about Mexico either. Ain't gonna happen anyway. Please keep the crazy ideas and squabbling over how to implement them in Canada.

As Reefer points out, you hear this type of response from those heavily invested in fossil fuels. Too bad about that $28 bbl oil.

[ReeferMadness]

I read it...twice....nothing about Mexico either. Ain't gonna happen anyway. Please keep the crazy ideas and squabbling over how to implement them in Canada.

You'd have to take that up with the Americans that are proposing it. Worried about your day trading?

[bush_cheney2004]

You'd have to take that up with the Americans that are proposing it. Worried about your day trading?

No....the U.S. already has more poster project renewables than Canada. Wind power development in Texas easily beats Ontario.

There is now so much oil it is being stored on crude carriers....go short...or go long.

[On Guard for Thee]

And it is complete nonsense developed by academics with no concept of engineering effort required to shunt power across long distances.

I looked up the credentials of the authors and found Meteorologists and a Mathematicians which means they know nothing about the topic they claim to write about (it is like asking your mechanic for medical advice).

To illustrate that nonsense of this study take this statement:

"But a new study suggests we don't actually need to store that power. Instead—because the wind is always blowing somewhere in the U.S., and a cloudy day in one city will be sunny elsewhere"

While this statement is trivially true at a continental scale it implies that every region (say the midwest) has to have enough capacity to not only supply its needs but the needs of other regions (say the eastern seaboard). This massive over capacity would be sitting idle most of the time since it would only be needed when the renewables fail in other regions. The cost of all of this redundancy would be astronomical.

More importantly, even if the the extra capacity existed it would have to be transported to other regions which implies an absolutely massive transmission grid capable of powering the entire region from a remote location. Such a grid would be many times larger and more expensive than the interconnects that exist today.

Hint: the cost of renewables does NOT come from the cost of installing solar panels or wind turbines. It comes from the huge infrastructure needed to compensate for their unreliability. So your 'grid parity' narrative is simply false. Repeating it ad-infinitum will not make it true.

Quite simply, engineers know how to build grid, the meteorologists come to the party with where to build the generating facilities when you are looking to wind/solar to power those grids.

[TimG]

Quite simply, engineers know how to build grid, the meteorologists come to the party with where to build the generating facilities when you are looking to wind/solar to power those grids.

The op title is the 'New Study Confirms Feasibility of Renewable Electricity'. To make that claim these Meteorologists would have understand the engineering problems associated with building a grid and costed them out. All they appeared to do is a theoretical study that shows that under some sets of idealized assumptions it might be possible. That is is NOT enough to establish "feasibility".

[On Guard for Thee]

The op title is the 'New Study Confirms Feasibility of Renewable Electricity'. To make that claim these Meteorologists would have understand the engineering problems associated with building a grid and costed them out. All they appeared to do is a theoretical study that shows that under some sets of idealized assumptions it might be possible. That is is NOT enough to establish "feasibility".

I don't see anything about "idealized assumptions" as you try to call it, I see historical studies of actual meteorological conditions that support the concept.

[TimG]

I don't see anything about "idealized assumptions" as you try to call it, I see historical studies of actual meteorological conditions that support the concept.

What is 'idealized' are their assumptions:

1) massive redundant and mostly unused capacity is built everywhere;

2) massive grid interconnects can allow one region with power to supply all the power another region needs;

3) the system is so reliable that we are not risking massive blackouts because power cannot be moved as expected;

Edited February 11, 2016 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

I think someone has a confirmation bias issue...

[Smoke]

The claim is we will reduce emissions by 80% and also generate $47B in savings. An 80% reduction in emissions means saving millions if not billions in emission mitigation. Added to the $47B this would be a huge amount of money. So why then are we paying thru the nose for electricity? Should these great savings not be able to pay for or offset the cost of installations and infrastructure over time? Why does the consumer need to pay for it up front with their hydro bill? Or is renewable energy simply another Liberal cash generating scheme to help them pay for their massive incompetence and main voting base....public service unions?

Edited February 11, 2016 by Smoke

[ReeferMadness]

I think someone has a confirmation bias issue...

I think that's an ad hominem comment. Do you have something to add to the issue?

[ReeferMadness]

The claim is we will reduce emissions by 80% and also generate $47B in savings. An 80% reduction in emissions means saving millions if not billions in emission mitigation. Added to the $47B this would be a huge amount of money. So why then are we paying thru the nose for electricity? Should these great savings not be able to pay for or offset the cost of installations and infrastructure over time? Why does the consumer need to pay for it up front with their hydro bill? Or is renewable energy simply another Liberal cash generating scheme to help them pay for their massive incompetence and main voting base....public service unions?

I suspect you're talking about whatever went on in Ontario. I believe there is already a thread for this and I think you should cover it off there. However, there are 4 things relevant Ontario that I recently read:

1. The situation had a lot more to do with the tens of billions spent on nuclear energy

2. The cost of renewable energy (particularly solar) has dropped considerably over the past 5-10 years

3. The costs are are due to renewables are due as much to bad negotiating with independent power producers as with any cost inherent to renewables (we have the same issue in BC re: run of river electricity)

4. Ontario has very high peak prices but overall electricity is competitive with other similar jurisdictions

In fact, Ontario is bordered on both sides by provinces with large amounts of hydroelectricity and should be partnering with them.

[Boges]

In fact, Ontario is bordered on both sides by provinces with large amounts of hydroelectricity and should be partnering with them.

But they aren't. . . Because? Wynne!

[-1=e^ipi]

I think that's an ad hominem comment.

No it isn't.

Ad hominem would be like 'person X is stupid therefore person X is wrong'.

[-1=e^ipi]

4. Ontario has very high peak prices but overall electricity is competitive with other similar jurisdictions

Tell that to magna. http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/05/08/magna_says_no_new_plants_for_canada_cites_ontario_energy_costs.html

[Bob Macadoo]

But they aren't. . . Because? Wynne!

1) They are upgrading the tie interconnect to Manitoba to allow more inflow. Waiting for the seller to pay more for the upgrade since they are more desparate to sell. That's "The Art of the Deal".

2) PQ doesn't negotiate on power contracts as they always believe they have the better hand a la Churchill Falls and they are already getting an upgrade into the NorthEast Pool via VT/NH so they'll get more from the US.

Not everything is Wynne's fault.

[ironstone]

Sorry,as a resident of Ontario,I know that my Hydro One bill will NEVER be lowered no matter how many billions we pour into wind and solar.