IEA says wind and solar can carry bulk of energy transformation

[GliderGuider]

IEA says wind and solar can carry bulk of energy transformation

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has released a report in which it concludes that the integration of large amounts of renewable energy can be achieved by any country at only a small increase on whole system costs, compared with the current fossil-fuel heavy electricity systems. Making the conclusion even more startling is that the IEA used present-day costs for solar PV and wind, with the two most widely-deployed renewable energy technologies set to provide the bulk of the generating capacity in these transformed electricity systems.

While renewable energy is often blamed for driving electricity prices up and having a costly destabilising affect on electricity grids, the IEA says that integration of renewables into electricity grids and markets can be done so at little cost. For the first 5-10 percent of what it calls variable renewable energy (VRE, essentially wind and solar), the IEA says this poses no technical or economic challenges at all. Even for higher levels of up to 45 per cent penetration, it says would cost only 10% to 15% more than the status quo.

The IEA says the key to incorporating high levels of wind and solar is for countries to employ renewable energy in a way that supports the grid, investing in additional flexible generating capacity and improving the operation of electricity markets.

“Integration is not simply about adding wind and solar on top of ‘business as usual,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. “We need to transform the system as a whole to do this cost-effectively.” van der Hoeven used the term “reliable renewable resources” throughout her presentation, it seems making the point that solar and wind are not highly variable and therefore unreliable and costly.

It can. What remains to be seen is whether it will.

[Voice for Peace]

1. it must, so it will

thanks for the post

[GliderGuider]

5. Not necessarily.

A lot of other factors can (and will) intervene.

[Voice for Peace]

19. I'm sticking with hope.

[GliderGuider]

20. It's not over till the fat lady sings, as they say. nt

[cprise]

2. The BAU mindset is like ketchup

...it resists until it has to play 'catch-up'. Then a revolution may follow.

That's why there is some hope we won't see a runaway warming effect; We can't dismiss it.

The clouds hanging over my view of the future are centered on lack of birth control and curbs on consumerism. Without those, more emissions are required just to build out the renewables, and the very important near-term effects of GHGs are made worse.

[WhiteTara]

3. We have to keep demanding a change. nt

[phantom power]

4. It continues to bug me....

That outputs of renewables are random variables, and unless you've got a substantially favorable amount of anti-correlation, the variances of random variables sum.



There is no way that somebody, somewhere, hasn't done this modeling. I'd like to see it.

The one empirical study of real live outputs I ever saw (which was wind-only) indicated that you'd need to overbuild by a factor of 5 to get an aggregate 90% capacity factor. Which (a) agrees with my intuition, (b) is obviously a possible solution, but (c) is a pretty huge compensation cost.

[pscot]

6. Why couldn't demand be adapted

There's no natural law that requires us to keep the lights on and the shop running 24/7.

[phantom power]

7. sure, the "power-down" scenario is always out there

I doubt that's ever going to happen voluntarily, for the reason that it implies voluntarily contracting the economy.

[pscot]

9. I'm sure we could stand just a tiny bit

of inconvenience to save the planet from our depredations. Or maybe not.

[FogerRox]

30. We powered down 50 years ago, in a way

So many things business does is reliant on when and how much they can get electricity for. Manufacturing was set up that way for a reason, so what if the reasons change as new sources of renewables come on line.

Demand goes down at night by about 40%, Utilities have discounted prices to industry, who then run 2nd & 3rd shifts because the savings in energy is more then the cost the midnight shift compared to the day shift. Yes theres more to it....but the point should be clear.

So lets start over....

If solar can deliver LCOE at 5 cents/kwh peak demand daytime in the near future.... how can this reshape how the labor pool is utilized?

Markets will move to renewables for the price, this is already happening with wind. The size of offshore HVDC wind projects has doubled in 4 years.

[kristopher]

10. That is always an integral part of planning for a distributed, renewable energy system

Keywords: energy efficiency, conservation

[kristopher]

11. You're significantly misstating the findings of the study; which is one of probably hundreds...

...if not thousands globally.

You probably don't know about any of those others because, in spite of the fact that many have been posted here, you've spent at least the past 7 years engaging in unrelenting knee-jerk criticism of renewable energy in your zeal to promote nuclear energy.

Your memory lapses include not only the number of studies on the topic, but also, regarding the one you "cite":
- overstating the amount of generation required, it is 3X not 5X (How much excess capacity does the centralized system require?);
- that it is an optimum solution for that specific load and geographic distribution of resources - so there are other configurations that will be effective;
- is designed to seek a least cost solution and it found that one that can be implemented at electricity prices "comparable to today's.

If you are actually sincere about being curious, I'd recommend you contact the authors of the study and ask for the information you feel is missing. I've posted the abstract and a link to the full study below.

You might also want to contact MZ Jacobson, since he's one of the leading authorities on the kind of modeling you are asking about. He's a person of great integrity and knowledge that will happily share his time with you if your questions are legitimate. Don't worry, he won't know how mightily you attempted to smear his name and reputation because one of his studies produced a finding that was (correctly) unfavorable to nuclear power.
In fact Jacobson just released the results of a project that modeled the entire nation:

Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy
http://phys.org/news/2014-02-stanford-scientist-unveil-state-renewable.html

The Solutions Project
http://thesolutionsproject.org

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW).

The purpose is twofold:
1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And
2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs.

Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data.

We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load.

This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost.

At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

[kristopher]

13. Here is one for China

Groundbreaking analysis shows China's renewable energy future within reach

Feb 19, 2014

Wind and solar preferable and cheaper than coal for China Credit: © WWF - Canon


By embracing conservation measures and renewable energy, China can transition to an 80 percent renewable electric power system by 2050 at far less cost than continuing to rely on coal, according to a new report from WWF-US.

As a result, China's carbon emissions from power generation could be 90 percent less than currently projected levels in 2050 without compromising the reliability of the electric grid or slowing economic growth.

The China's Future Generation report was prepared by the Energy Transition Research Institute (Entri) for WWF and uses robust computer modeling to simulate four scenarios based on today's proven technology: a Baseline, High Efficiency, High Renewables, and Low-Carbon Mix scenario. To develop its findings, Entri examines China's electricity supply and demand on an hour-by-hour basis through 2050 using its advanced China Grid Model.

"By fully embracing energy conservation, efficiency and renewables, China has the potential to demonstrate to the world that economic growth is possible while sharply reducing the emissions that drive unhealthy air pollution and climate change," said WWF's China Climate and Energy Program Director Lunyan Lu. "This research shows that with strong political will, China can prosper while eliminating coal from its power mix within the next 30 years."

In addition to ramping up development of renewable power sources, the world's most populous and energy-hungry nation will need ...

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-groundbreaking-analysis-china-renewable-energy.html

You can download copy of report with this link:
http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/chinas_future_generation_report_final__1_.pdf

[kristopher]

14. NREL Renewables Futures Study

I can certainly understand how you missed this one since it was probably posted here not more than 20 or 30 times.

The Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures) provides an analysis of the grid integration opportunities, challenges, and implications of high levels of renewable electricity generation for the U.S. electric system. The study is not a market or policy assessment. Rather, RE Futures examines renewable energy resources and many technical issues related to the operability of the U.S. electricity grid, and provides initial answers to important questions about the integration of high penetrations of renewable electricity technologies from a national perspective. RE Futures results indicate that a future U.S. electricity system that is largely powered by renewable sources is possible and that further work is warranted to investigate this clean generation pathway. The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.

The renewable technologies explored in this study are components of a diverse set of clean energy solutions that also includes nuclear, efficient natural gas, clean coal, and energy efficiency. Understanding all of these technology pathways and their potential contributions to the future U.S. electric power system can inform the development of integrated portfolio scenarios. RE Futures focuses on the extent to which U.S. electricity needs can be supplied by renewable energy sources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind.

The study explores grid integration issues using models with unprecedented geographic and time resolution for the contiguous United States. The analysis (1) assesses a variety of scenarios with prescribed levels of renewable electricity generation in 2050, from 30% to 90%, with a focus on 80% (with nearly 50% from variable wind and solar photovoltaic generation); (2) identifies the characteristics of a U.S. electricity system that would be needed to accommodate such levels; and (3) describes some of the associated challenges and implications of realizing such a future. In addition to the central conclusion noted above, RE Futures finds that increased electric system flexibility, needed to enable electricity supply-demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply- and demand-side options, including flexible conventional generation, grid storage, new transmission, more responsive loads, and changes in power system operations. The analysis also finds that the abundance and diversity of U.S. renewable energy resources can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies that result in deep reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use. The study finds that the incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios. Of the sensitivities examined, improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost. Assumptions reflecting the extent of this improvement are based on incremental or evolutionary improvements to currently commercial technologies and do not reflect U.S. Department of Energy activities to further lower renewable technology costs so that they achieve parity with conventional technologies.

Renewable Electricity Futures Study Volume 3: End-Use Electricity Demand
Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

[Yo_Mama]

26. If you look at real world examples

the math seems to be borne out.

[CRH]

8. The challenges will be many, ...

the politics, the fossil fuel industry, the time of deployment vs a stable manufacturing environment.

Also the need for constant evolution in the technology and materials. Rare earth metals creates another interesting dynamic, politically and economically. Recycling will only go so far. For solar and wind to carry the bulk of energy transformation, at projected demand, the acquisition of rare earth metals will certainly be tested.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_technologies/2711/

Time will tell.

[kristopher]

12. In the large picture resource constraints affecting renewable rollout are nil.

What is at stake is some small degree in increased profitability for some companies with some designs, nothing more. Every single design is in competition with very good alternatives.

But hey, thanks for sharing yet another nuclear industry talking point about renewables.

[CRH]

18. you see nuclear phantoms, where there are none. n/t

[kristopher]

21. Where do you think an incorrect argument like that originates?

Read any article about renewable power online and you'll find that the agents of misinformation regarding the state of renewable energy technologies are almost exclusively promoting nuclear.

I've seen the specific claim with the same inappropriate conclusion drawn from it posted probably 50-75 times on this forum - and I'd be willing to wager that the source is almost invariably a proponent of nuclear power. Think about it - the claim that rare earth elements pose any significant obstacle to the roll out of a global renewable energy system is absolutely, unequivocally, demonstrably false. So, do you honestly believe false memes like that create themselves? They may be spread by innocent people who think they are true, but given the known PR efforts of the entrenched energy establishment and their well justified fear of renewable technologies it isn't a leap to infer the source of false memes that "have legs" to be part of that effort.

[CRH]

22. Not sure it is an incorrect argument, many others are concerned, ...

This article it seems is more influenced by geo political concerns than a plot by the nuclear industry.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101001-energy-rare-earth-metals/

In this article, again the nuclear component seems to be lacking. It is more a general economic and trade issue in the political forum. It shows that industry is searching for ways to minimize or replace the use of rare earth metals, but that there is a need as stated earlier, for technologies to continue to evolve to overcome an availability issue.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/120330-china-rare-earth-minerals-energy/

This article is from the mining industry, in the economic challenges of mining extraction and processing of rare earth metals. Again, no direct connection to the nuclear lobby. The industry does see a shortfall in the future. This article is from May 2013, so the problem still persists for the supply chain for industry in general, not just renewable energy.
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/critical-alternative-rare-earths-sources-still-not-secured-since-chinas-2010-export-restrictions-2013-05-17-1

New demand has recently strained supply, and there is growing concern that the world may soon face a shortage of rare earths. Within several years, global demand for rare earths elements is expected to exceed supply by 40 000 t/y unless significant new sources are developed.

Rare-earth elements consist of 17 elements on the periodic table, including 15 elements beginning with atomic number 57 (lanthanum), extending through to number 71 (lutetium), and including the elements yttrium and scandium, which have similar properties.

These are referred to as “rare” because, although relatively abundant in total quantity, they appear in low concentrations in the earth’s crust and extraction and processing are both difficult and costly.

end edit

A new research group has been recently formed to address this shortage that is of an obvious concern to many others in industry. It is a DOE project, The Critical Minerals Institute.
https://cmi.ameslab.gov

As stated earlier, it will be one of the challenges that faces wind, solar, and other industries associated, to keep evolving. The build out the OP, the IEA paper says is possible, would be massive. And the demand on materials will be a part of that challenge. But it is a concern that reaches far beyond the nuclear lobby.

[kristopher]

23. I understand your perspective and all of the information you've brought in.

My point, however, already considered all of that. The situation can be summed up in this way:
- There are some REEs that are valuable to the profitability of some designs.

- It isn't an industry wide issue and the industry would proceed apace if there were No REEs.

- The crux of the matter is that we entered/are/will in be a market induced shortage caused by a surge in demand that exceeded the capacity of the refining facilities that were in service.

- Just as supply/demand dynamics created a resource bottleneck, it will alleviate it.

- China's prior entry into that market led to price declines that caused the shut down of most of the rest of the REE refining facilities in the world.

- This put China (which was growing its wind industry for global competition) in the position of being able to throttle development of more competitive foreign technologies by limiting their access to the relevant REEs. It also led to a price spike in REEs that has prompted consideration of reopening refining facilities outside of China.

- The competitive edge afforded by REEs plus their shortage has already produced alternative approaches to achieving the same improvements that REEs can be used for.

- At no point in time, ever, was the progress of renewable energy writ large in any kind of jeopardy whatsoever.

- However, there was a flood of articles that tried to instill in public consciousness exactly the idea that wind and solar can't meet global energy demand because there was some sort of rare material required.

You, inadvertently I'm sure, were participating in that when you included it as a caveat about wind and solar:

"Rare earth metals creates another interesting dynamic, politically and economically. Recycling will only go so far. For solar and wind to carry the bulk of energy transformation, at projected demand, the acquisition of rare earth metals will certainly be tested."

You can certainly reframe that by pointing to the existence of a broader discussion on the topic, but it's pretty evident by the juxtaposition of remark to the content of the OP that you were expressing a belief about the inadequacy of wind and solar and were not making a comment on the above described market dynamics of rare earth elements.

The reason you possess such a belief is almost certainly the result of the efforts of the nuclear industry's crusade against renewable energy because they are they group that has been promoting that specific misconception.

[CRH]

24. You are still not representing what I said accurately, ...

from your post 23 -

- However, there was a flood of articles that tried to instill in public consciousness exactly the idea that wind and solar can't meet global energy demand because there was some sort of rare material required.

You, inadvertently I'm sure, were participating in that when you included it as a caveat about wind and solar:
"Rare earth metals creates another interesting dynamic, politically and economically. Recycling will only go so far. For solar and wind to carry the bulk of energy transformation, at projected demand, the acquisition of rare earth metals will certainly be tested.

You conveniently omitted the first sentence of that paragraph cherry picking what you can reframe into your nuclear hysteria. The first sentence qualifies the excerpted statement, from my post. When speaking of the 'challenges' of wind and solar to fulfill the IEA report's energy transformation prediction, -

Also the need for constant evolution in the technology and materials. Rare earth metals creates another interesting dynamic, politically and economically. Recycling will only go so far. For solar and wind to carry the bulk of energy transformation, at projected demand, the acquisition of rare earth metals will certainly be tested.

Nowhere in that statement was the idea communicated, "wind and solar can't meet global energy demand."

Then you top off your perception of the post with this:

You can certainly reframe that by pointing to the existence of a broader discussion on the topic, but it's pretty evident by the juxtaposition of remark to the content of the OP that you were expressing a belief about the inadequacy of wind and solar and were not making a comment on the above described market dynamics of rare earth elements.

You just substituted my word of 'challenge' for your word of 'inadequacy'.

And then:

The reason you possess such a belief is almost certainly the result of the efforts of the nuclear industry's crusade against renewable energy because they are they group that has been promoting that specific misconception.

Yawn, back to your nuclear phantoms.

If I am so against renewables, why do I have a grid tied 1.92 Kw solar array with an additional .5 Kw evacuated tube solar hot water system, sitting on my roof? Why am I elated with their purpose, function and savings. Seems a strange emotion for a person who by your account, has been brainwashed into renewable bashing and promoting a pro nuclear solution.

Life is too short, … good day, kristopher

[kristopher]

25. Really?

Also the need for constant evolution in the technology and materials. Rare earth metals creates another interesting dynamic, politically and economically. Recycling will only go so far. For solar and wind to carry the bulk of energy transformation, at projected demand, the acquisition of rare earth metals will certainly be tested.

The OP is about a global rollout of renewable energy. There is no limitation on that rollout related to REE or anything else for that matter (not counting political will).

If you aren't expressing the belief in a limitation on that rollout, then what was the point of your remark? You certainly were not addressing the market dynamics behind the supply of REEs.

The separate question is what is the genesis of the meme you've repeated. If I come on DU and start talking about guns it would be pretty apparent what the origin of many of my claims would be. If I start talking about climate change and how the sun goes through cycles or how CO2 is good for plants, you'd not quibble about the fact that people with vested interests created the distortion of information I had taken as true.

Why should a meme regarding energy be looked at in a different way? Do you think memes that distort information on highly controversial topics of great economic significance routinely just magically appear?

[kristopher]

15. The real significance of this study isn't the findings - it is who is publishing those findings

The IEA is bedrock fossil fuel/nuclear and like the US EIA, they've been downplaying renewables for decades.

The fact that they are admitting what they are speaks volumes to the changing dynamics in world markets.

[NickB79]

16. “Integration is not simply about adding wind and solar on top of ‘business as usual,”

Except, that's what we've been doing up to this point, soooo........

[kristopher]

17. You've been seeing it...

The economically induced retirement of inflexible sources of generation (coal and nuclear) and the evolution of micro grids.

[Yo_Mama]

27. This seems a bit of a distortion

The press release on the report says that the whole report must be purchased, but the executive summary is here:
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/GIVAR2014sum.pdf

[kristopher]

28. How so?

[GliderGuider]

29. An excerpt from the Executive Summary:

Integrating large shares of VRE cost-effectively calls for a system-wide transformation

The classic view sees VRE integration as adding wind and PV generation without considering all available options for system adaptation. This ‘traditional’ view may miss the point. Integration effects are determined by both VRE and other system components. Consequently, they can be reduced by interventions on either side. In short, integration of VRE is not simply about adding VRE to “business as usual,” but transforming the system as a whole.

The cost of reaching high shares of VRE differs from system to system. Most importantly, costs depend on how well different components of the system fit together. Minimising total system costs at high shares of VRE requires a strategic approach to adapting and transforming the energy system as a whole.

Supposing that high shares of VRE are added overnight significantly increases total system costs. Using a test system, an extreme and purely hypothetical case was investigated. A share of 45% VRE in annual generation was added to the system overnight and only the operation of the remaining system was allowed to change (Legacy case, see Box ES.1). In this case, total system costs increase by as much as USD 33 per megawatt hour (/MWh) or about 40% (rising from USD 86/MWh to USD 119/MWh, Figure ES.1). This increase is the result of three principal drivers:

• additional cost of VRE deployment itself (which in this modelling exercise is assumed to remain similar to today’s levels)
  
• additional grid costs associated with connecting distant VRE generation and grid reinforcements
  
• limited avoided costs in the residual system, because VRE can only bring operational savings in the form of fuel and emission cost reductions in the Legacy scenario.

The additional costs of more flexible operation of existing power plants (more frequent start/stop, more dynamic changes in output) are not an important element in the increased costs.

A co-ordinated transformation of the entire system reduces additional costs. A different scenario of the test system considers a more transformative approach. The installed power plant mix is reoptimised in the presence of 45% VRE and additional flexibility options are deployed (Transformed case). Compared to the Legacy case, the power plant mix shows a structural shift:

• a strong decrease in the number of power plants that are designed to operate around the clock and that cannot change their output dynamically (referred to as baseload technologies)
  
• an increase in the number of flexible power plants that are designed for part-time operation (referred to as mid-merit and peaking generation).

In addition, a better strategy for managing grid infrastructure is assumed. In this case, total system
costs increase only by USD 11/MWh. This is two-thirds less than in the Legacy scenario. At a share of
30% of VRE in power generation, the increase in total system costs stands at USD 6/MWh.