Can California meet its Renewable Energy Portfolio?ANS Nuclear CafeJuly 13, 2011, 6:00AM|Ulrich DecherCalifornia has recently adopted a renewable energy portfolio with the goal to provide 33 percent of its electricity from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric facilities by 2020.Can this portfolio succeed? It is an ambitious goal, but it takes more than legislative action for such a program to go forward. It takes an actual plan that can be met with actual engineering accomplishments.In order to determine the probability of success, we can look at California's renewable energy sources in prior years. These are available on the Internet and are presented in the following graph.The plot shows the actual renewable sources of electricity generated in California from 2005 to 2009 and shows the projected increase required to achieve the goal of 33 percent by 2020. Notice that the renewable contribution has been rather constant over the previous years and requires a dramatic increase to achieve the goal. This implies that something different needs to be done than what has been done it the past, otherwise the projection line will be ever steeper and eventually needs to be abandoned.So, exactly which of the renewable energy sources can be increased to reach the goal? It is generally accepted that biomass, geothermal, and small hydro cannot be increased significantly, which leaves the intermittent sources of solar and wind to do the job. Is it reasonable to expect that solar and wind can accomplish the task? The gap that must be closed by 2020 is 21 percent of the total electricity consumption.Solar currently contributes only 0.3 percent (2009) of the electricity used in California. This contribution is too small to expect a significant contribution by 2020. It might be doubled by 2020, but this is still a small amount.The wind contribution is 2.7 percent (2009), which is a bit larger. The expectation that it will close the 21-percent renewable gap is unrealistic, however, for the following reasons: Meeting the goal would require adding about 2-percent wind generation every year for 10 years. This yearly increase is about equal to the total wind generation in California today. It is unreasonable that many wind turbines (tens of thousands) could be built and installed somewhere in California every year. Another reason is that the California grid (or any grid) cannot handle 20-percent generation from wind energy. It is generally accepted that 20-percent wind capacity is the limit that an isolated grid can handle. (Capacity is quite different from generation for wind turbines. For each unit of capacity addition, there is only ¼ of a unit for generation addition because of wind intermittency).So. if California is able to add the maximum amount of capacity (20 percent), it would only translate to generation of about 5 percent. California, therefore, already has about half the wind energy that the grid could ever handle. With a crash program to build all the wind turbines that California could handle, the total renewable contribution might increase to 15 percent by 2020 (11.6 percent current contribution, which includes 2.7 percent wind plus 2.3 percent maximum potential wind increase). This is still a long way from 33 percent.So, the question still is how California expects to reach its 33 percent renewable goal. To shed some light on that question, we must examine California electricity imports.California electricity importsCalifornia does not generate all the electricity used in the state. The plot below shows the historical imports into California.The plot shows that in some years, the electricity imports have exceeded 30 percent. The large increase in 2006-2007 has come as a result of the virtual elimination of in-state electricity generation using coal. This reduction in in-state generation needed to be compensated by an increase in imports (largely from imported coal generation). So far, the net effect of California's desire to go green is to shift the coal generation to other states.The reduction of in-state coal generation is shown in the next plot, which shows all the in-state generation. (Both of these plots are normalized to the total 2009 energy consumption because of my desire to use the units of % and, at the same time, show real generation trends that are not confused by changes in electricity demand.)One of the interesting aspects of the imports graph is the "unspecified" portion of the imports in 2009, which is thusly explained:Due to legislative changes required by Assembly Bill 162 (2009), the California Air Resources Board is currently undertaking the task of identifying the fuel sources associated with all imported power entering into California.This unspecified portion of the imports is about 15 percent of the total generation.If we compare the 2009 imports to the 2008 imports, it is clear that much of this "unspecified" portion actually comes from imported coal generation, with a smaller amount from hydro and natural gas.If California can reclassify this "unspecified" portion of its energy mix as "renewable," then a good portion of the renewable portfolio could be met. That appears to be the plan, as will be explained further in tomorrow's post.Imported wind generationThere has been a substantial increase in the use of wind-generated electricity in California, as shown in the plot below. Most of the increase since 2005 has come from imports.One might think that a few percent of intermittent wind on the grid would not cause problems, but this amount is an average over a whole year. This amount is, in fact, a problem at times during the year when demand for electricity is low and the wind generation is high. At those times, electricity distribution systems find themselves in a no-win situation, where they have to break wind generation contracts in order not to violate existing electricity distribution laws. This has already resulted in lawsuits brought against BPA by the wind industry.These lawsuits need to be defeated. We can't make laws giving a privilege to one industry, such as a mandated market for wind, which requires other entities to break existing laws. Furthermore, the wind industry should not be compensated for not producing power at those times. It should be a risk of doing business. Such risks are normally accepted by other industries.The wind generation that is discussed above is generation that is actually used in California. There also exists wind generation that is not used in California, but is credited to the state. This is discussed in Part II of this article, which will appear tomorrow.____________________________________________________DecherUlrich Decher holds a PhD in nuclear engineering. He is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee and a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.Tags:wind powerShare:LinkedInTwitterFacebook
A Dangerous Precedent or a Slippery Slope?The governor of Vermont last year established the "Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission" after citizens protested a proposed wind farm (meanwhile, the legislature proposed a wind farm moratorium bill). The main purpose of the governor's initiative was to evaluate how much local input should be required in energy siting decisions.Go to Article
Alternative energy in Vermont – Chickens coming home to roost"Curses, like chickens, come home to roost." - Chaucer, 1343-1400Go to Article
Friday Nuclear Matinee: Wind Turbines and Nuclear PowerAll forms of electricity generation have their own set of advantages... But among the seemingly endless unique advantages of nuclear fission are the massive implications of the deceptively simple equation E=mc². This translates to unparalleled energy density.Go to Article
Replacing nuclear with wind power: Could it be done?Many people would like it to be theoretically possible to replace nuclear power with wind power, since the wind is a free resource. The way that I would like to approach the topic is to not discuss the source of power, but to discuss this question from the perspective of "intermittency." Stating the question another way: Can an intermittent source replace a baseload power source for producing electricity? This question has nothing to do with how the electricity is generated, but everything to do with when the electricity is generated.Go to Article
Tape review of Vermont Yankee power struggle debateOne of my college roommates served for a while as the manager of our football team; we would talk about the "tape review" sessions that were used by the team to evaluate past performance and to prepare for future opponents. Nuclear organizations, for their part, often have highly developed "lessons learned" programs and they practice the use of technical methods that have been successfully employed by other organizations.Go to Article
Wind power to nuclear power infographic comparisonThis article is the first in a series of info-graphic presentations about nuclear energy. This graphic compares the energy density of nuclear to that of wind power.Go to Article
Pretty EnergyI recently joined the latest social media phenomenon-"Pinterest"-after some good old-fashioned peer pressure from my pals. Basically it is an online scrapbook, where you can collect images from all over the Internet and organize or "pin" them under categories like "recipes to try" or "ideas for the garden" on your personal page. There is very little text and not much user-to-user interaction. You just browse thousands of images of party dresses, wedding ideas, art, or whatever you or other users have uploaded to the site. Essentially it's a whole lot of eye candy.Go to Article
In Defense of EyesoresHave you ever heard the joke about the football player who was so ugly that, whenever he stepped onto the field, he was penalized 15 yards for illegal use of face? Okay, you probably haven't heard that one before, because I just made it up. The concept of ugliness, both in the abstract and as attributed to specific entities, has long inspired creativity; after all, it spurred me to develop that magnificent joke. (For you young folks out there, the term "illegal use of hands" used to be applied to something one shouldn't do in football, only in the last few years the terminology has changed, so . . . ahh, skip it.)Go to Article
Can California meet its Renewable Energy Portfolio? Part IIIThe first two parts of this series (here and here) presented historical trends in electricity generation in California, and the growing use of in-state natural gas and imports of electricity from grids in neighboring states. They also showed that the use of "Unbundled Renewable Energy Credits" could meet the 33 percent renewable portfolio on paper, but may not benefit consumers in California with actual delivery of electricity.Go to Article
Don't judge a book by its cover: Getting to the bottom of EIA monthly dataEarlier this month, a number of sources drew attention to the Energy Information Administration's report on energy (published in June), with headlines suggesting a landmark accomplishment: "Domestic Renewable Energy Production Surpasses Nuclear." Even Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, got in on the act, proclaiming that "The real energy renaissance happening in America is from the flourishing of renewable energy."Go to Article