Not so long ago, nuclear power was seen as âthe new energyâ that would drown the world in cheap electricity. It didnât turn out that way. Now the same promise is made for renewables. Andreas de Vries looks at went wrong in the nuclear case and warns that the renewables sector could be in for a disappointment if it does not avoid making the same mistakes.
The general opinion regarding the possibility of a Third Great Energy Revolution, from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, has clearly shifted. Just two years ago, when I began writing on the subject, many were highly skeptical and doubted there even was such a possibility. Today the main question seems to have become not if it will happen, but rather when.
Two trends lie at the heart of this change in perspective. The first is the continuing growth of renewable energy, which is accelerating as costs are falling. The second is the shift of the auto industry to electric, autonomous and shared vehicles, which is also happening at accelerating speed. Together, these two trends have created an expectation that future transportation will be fully electric and charged from renewable sources, rather than internal combustion based and powered by oil derivatives.
Nuclear in the 1950s and 1960s was a classic bubble where emotion reigned
This has led investors to line up for opportunities in new energy, the battery industry in particular. The reality of today is, namely, that battery technology does not yet support a transition to the envisioned âNew Energy Futureâ. Battery technology improvements will be needed to overcome renewable energyâs intermittency problem and the current cost disadvantage of electric vehicles, which means that whoever is able to solve these challenges first is destined to make a fortune.
Too cheap to meter
Because battery technology for both electricity storage and electric drive trains has improved substantially over recent years, the general expectation is that these improvements are imminent. Amidst all this investor excitement it is worthwhile to bring back into memory the excitement that surrounded nuclear energy back in the 1950s and 1960s.
Back then, nuclear technology was seen as on the verge of delivering improvements that would enable the production of electricity that would be âtoo cheap to meterâ, and thereby enable the nuclear industry to take over the power generation industry comprehensively, globally. Clearly, nuclear has failed to deliver on this expectation. As it turned out, the expected technological breakthroughs were not been delivered. And instead of down costs have actually gone up, leaving many investors to pay a heavy price.
What could new energy investors learn from nuclearâs experience?
Another reason why nuclear technology failed to deliver the expected improvements was that as the industry grew, its focus turned to scale rather than cost
The reasons for nuclear technology failure to deliver the improvements that would drive nuclear energyâs cost down have been extensively studied.
One of the most important reasons is the fact that expectations were inflated. To a large extent, the excitement surrounding nuclear was built by government research papers that cited industry projections regarding efficiency improvements and cost reductions, which, in turn, cited other government research papers that cited industry projections. This spiral of the most optimistic citing the most optimistic led to expectations that were, we now know, unrealistic.
In other words, nuclear in the 1950s and 1960s was a classic bubble where emotion reigned, causing facts that supported the expectation to be given prominence while facts that went against established wisdom were ignored. The same can of course happen in renewable energy. Some are concerned that it already has as far as battery technology is concerned.
Bigger is better
Another reason why nuclear technology failed to deliver the expected improvements was that as the industry grew, its focus turned to scale rather than cost. As every new nuclear reactor project was bigger than its predecessors, so was its complexity, greatly adding to the cost (on a per MW basis) to build, operate and maintain the plant.
If the battery industry becomes overly focused on ârange anxietyâ and its energy storage equivalent, a similar âbigger is betterâ attitude would end up prevailing (âwe can deliver a 1,500 mile radius and 90 daysâ worth of storage!â). The cost competiveness of electric vehicles and a renewable energy based energy infrastructure could in this case also end up suffering.
The nuclear industry ended up suffering greatly from a supply chain that was too narrow and tight
The third factor that deflated nuclear industryâs hopes is that the sector failed to translate its lessons learned into cost reductions. It primarily applied new knowledge to deliver âbetterâ reactors, which were more complex, and the costs associated with this added complexity cancelled out most of the cost reductions achieved by economies of scale. Something similar could transpire in the battery industry if it becomes overly focused on things such as charging time.
Fourthly, the nuclear industry ended up suffering greatly from a supply chain that was too narrow and tight. Due to a lack of standardization in reactor design, customized materials were used for which there were too few vendors, leading to massive cost escalation once demand for nuclear energy went up.
A renewable energy future will similarly lead to increased demand for numerous materials, amongst them lithium, cobalt, graphite and the rare earths, which if not handled properly could cause supply shortages and price increases that would cancel out the cost reductions made by technology improvements.
Editorâs Note
Andreas de Vries is a Strategy Consultant in the energy industry.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
The logic here seems to me somewhat forced. I am sure that there are problems ahead on the way to a mostly renewable energy system, but comparing range anxiety to reactor size growth is a stretch. With regard to nuclear power the article does not even mention safety concerns and the associated activism, negative public perception, and growth of regulatory framework as contributors to the complexity increase. Public perception might be a more interesting aspect to pursue for renewables.
Many thanks for your comment, Mister Herb. To be clear, the article does not compare the nuclear industry with the new energy industry. Rather, it compares the expectations regarding the nuclear energy industry from the 1950s and 1960s, with the current expectations regarding new energy. My warning is that expectations do not always come true, and by explaining the “mistakes” made by nuclear hopefully new energy will steer clear from these. Thanks again.
New energy, wind and solar, have already steered far clear of nuclear’s mistakes, false promises.
Nuclear promised affordable electricity but delivered at higher and higher prices throughout its history. Wind and solar prices have fallen at an incredible rate and costs continue to fall.
Nuclear promised clean and safe electricity. We now have a major used fuel problem, a few instances of nuclear disasters, and many “near misses”. The US has about 18,000 abandoned uranium mines, many of which need to be cleared of hazardous waste. There is nothing with wind and solar technology which brings the risk that nuclear energy introduces into our lives.
I had the exact same thoughts. Renewables are orders of magnitude less complex than even the most basic nuclear power reactor with minimal safety systems. Certainly there are headwinds for renewables and the hubris around early nuclear power should be heeded but upside potential this time around seems more certain with much less downside potential (public safety essentially a non factor relatively speaking).
The main difference between nuclear and PV, Wind power & batteries is that nuclear power plants are infrastructure projects while PV, Wind power & batteries are mass produced factory products. Factories are the places where efficiency gains, productivity and cost cutting are astounding, large infrastructure projects sucks as they ever sucked. They are too costly and too slow.
Spot on, there is also the “proliferation” issue, which the renewable industry clearly not has, as nobody minds any country joining in on the renewable industry. Also the unsolved waste problem, blow-up risk etc. etc.. It is really a stretch to compare the renewable industry to the nucear industry, when there are no similarities. The best comparison for the renewable industry is the semiconductor and computer industry, the similaritis to battery and solar technology are obvious.
The author has a point here…
Renewables and electrical storage technologies have a severe scalability problem. Numbers simply don’t add up. Hydro and Wind are constrained by geography, NIMBY and feedback effect. PV is hopelessly inefficient making (due to carbon debt) everything much worse before it gets better. Electric cars are an ecological disaster. At this point, it’s all about hype, really…Yes, we have a serious problem with global warming and time is running out…But no business model or policy can make deficient technologies better…
Rok, I’m afraid you’ve been hoodwinked by either the fossil fuel or nuclear industry. Perhaps both.
There’s no realistic shortage of places to install wind and solar. Electric cars are in no way an ecological disaster.
…
“The second is the shift of the auto industry to electric, autonomous and shared vehicles, which is also happening at accelerating speed.”
Well-to-wheel, ICE-electric hybrids are more efficient than pure electrics. No doubt the vast majority of automobilesâdriver or no driver, shared or notâin the coming decades will be powered by gasoline or CNG ICE engines driving an electric generator driving electric motors.
“Well-to-wheel, ICE-electric hybrids are more efficient than pure electrics.”
No internal combustion engines are massively inefficient. Electric motors are highly efficient. About 80% of the energy you pump into your fuel tank is lost as waste heat. About 20% of the energy coming out of the wall socket is lost in an EV.
Getting energy out of the ground, shipping it to a refinery, cracking out the part usable as fuel, hauling it to a fuel station, pumping it into your tank – that, my friend, is inefficient.
Sunlight falling on a solar panel and the produced electricity flowing over the grid with a very small percentage loss – that’s efficient.
“Sunlight falling on a solar panel and the produced electricity flowing over the grid with a very small percentage loss â thatâs efficient.”
No, solar panels are massively inefficient. About 80% of the sunlight that falls on solar panels is lost as heat.
Your super efficient electric motor, my friend, is powered by natural gas internal combustion engines 34% of the time, coal external combustion engines: 31%; steam turbines driven by water heated by controlled nuclear fission: 20%; water turbines turned by water flowing through dams: 6%; with wind, solar, geothermal, oil, and biomass powering your electric car less than 10% of the time for all those minor power sources combined. These percentages are for the US; your mileage my vary.
Well-to-wheel, hybrid gasoline/electric cars are more efficient than plug in electric cars:
http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2404277/comparison-energy-efficiency-co2-gasoline-electric-vehicles
That’s true. A lot of sunlight falling on a panel is not turned into electricity, but that’s not important. The energy comes at a price of zero.
The efficiency of which I was speaking is from panels (dams, wind turbines) to battery charging. It’s very cheap to move electrons and they don’t have to be “processed” once they leave the wind or solar farm or dam.
“Your super efficient electric motor, my friend, is powered by natural gas internal combustion engines 34% of the time…”
And those fossil fuel inputs drop each year. 3.1 Market Share Change from 2006….
https://goo.gl/8cbAX4
The hybrid/EV question of which is ‘cleaner’ is really a consideration of the local grid. We could play a game of who has the cleanest/dirtiest grid but that’s a waste of time. Clearly a hybrid cannot be a clean machine because it runs on petroleum. (Unless we develop large quantities of bio- or synfuel.) EVs get cleaner as grids get cleaner.
Those people who charge their EVs from the electricity generated by the solar panels they installed are running very clean machines.
” We could play a game of who has the cleanest/dirtiest grid but thatâs a waste of time. Clearly a hybrid cannot be a clean machine because it runs on petroleum.”
It’s not a waste of time. Rather, it gets to the heart of the matter. In operation, pure EVs are only as clean as their ultimate power source. It will take decades for wind and solar to supply even 20% of US electrical capacity, and keep in mind that changing all cars to pure EVs would increase electricity demand in the US by about 30%. And charging all those EVs with home solar panels is a fantasy except perhaps in high solar insolation states in the southwest quadrant of the US.
Gasoline and/or natural gas â electric hybrids will power most cars for decades to come. It just makes sense.
Meantime, I expect that thorium nuclear reactors and geothermal will catch up to and surpass wind and PV electrical generation in the decades to come.
“It will take decades for wind and solar to supply even 20% of US electrical capacity,”
Very unlikely. Wind and solar were at 6.9% in 2016. That’s up from 5.6% in 2015 and rates of installation are increasing.
” changing all cars to pure EVs would increase electricity demand in the US by about 30%”
Switching cars off petroleum will free up part of the electricity that will be needed to charge them. We use significant amounts of electricity to pump, transport, refine, and distribute oil/fuel.
So far we’ve seen that people who purchase EVs have a higher rate of installing home solar than those who purchase ICEVs. Even in “middle America” around $7,000 worth of panels will produce as much as electricity most people will use in their lifetimes for driving.
“Gasoline and/or natural gas â electric hybrids will power most cars for decades to come. It just makes sense.”
It already does not make sense. I gave you the data. There are more ‘clean’ grids in the US than ‘dirty’ grids. It’s cheaper to drive an EV than a hybrid ICEV.
“I expect that thorium nuclear reactors and geothermal will catch up to and surpass wind and PV electrical generation in the decades to come.”
Good luck with that prediction as well…. ;o)
Perhaps you don’t realize, the fuel cost for reactors is very cheap. Last accounting, uranium costs $0.0079/kWh. Less than a penny. If thorium was free it wouldn’t make nuclear affordable.
There’s no known route for geothermal to reach the current price levels of wind and solar. It’s expensive to drill holes in the ground.
You may expect this, but production capacity for wind and solar by far exceeds capacity for nuclear, and is risin, as well as installation rates.
“It will take decades for wind and solar to supply even 20% of US electrical capacity, ”
If the political will is there it can go much much faster. There are no technological or economical barriers to get to 20 or 40% wind and solar.
“and charging all those EVs with home solar panels is a fantasy except perhaps in high solar insolation states in the southwest quadrant of the US.”
Let’s say you live in Anchorage Alaska. There the average daily solar irradation is 2.96 kWh/mÂČ per day, or 1080 kWh/mÂČ per year*. Say you have a medium size house with 30 mÂČ of usable roof, and you have installed a photovoltaicc system with a modest overall system efficiency of 12%. This will give you a yield of 3889 kWh per year.
You also have an EV which can drive about 10 km on 1 kWh and drive about 15 thousand km per year, so you use 1500 kWh per year for your car.
So even in Alaska with a suboptimal system on a suboptimal roof less than 40% of the yield of your pv-system is enough to power your car.
* On a south oriented titled roof you can gain 10 to 15%, but I assumed here that this was a suboptimal roof.
“It will take decades for wind and solar to supply even 20% of US electrical capacity, ”
It took Denmark 31 years to get from 0% to 19% of wind power. But gettting from 19% to 41% took only six years! [1].
The United States does not have to repeat these cumbersome first 31 years, because they will be starting with current technology, not the primitive technology of 1977.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark#Consumption_related_to_wind_power
Well, Hans, I’m being realistic. Sure, any country could spend lots of money to install lots of windmills but is it politically feasible? I recently saw an article about South Australia overtaking Denmark for the highest electricity prices in the world. US33Âą per killowatt hour was the price of electricity in Denmark from what I can tell whereas the average price in the US is 10Âą/KWH. Both Denmark and Australia have raced to convert to wind and both have sky high costs.
Such a massive energy cost increase would be politically impossible in the US, especially since we’re the world’s largest hydrocarbon producer. However individual US states are free to decide where to derive their electricity.
The cheapest price in the US are 10ct/kWh, not the average, there are much more expensive areas.
And Australia has plenty of problems with it’s grid outside wind or solar power. E.g. Gas which is not available, although a lot is exported, almost inexistent transportation grids creating extreme peak prices and many other strange things.
Retail electricity prices are not a reliable guide to what it costs to generate electricity. Taxes in some countries can easily double the wholesale cost (or more).
Denmark has some of the least expensive electricity in Europe when you look at wholesale prices. It’s almost half the cost of electricity in France.
Look at EU wholesale prices –
9.1
https://goo.gl/8cbAX4
There you go again. Without any evidence attributing high consumer costs to renewables.
As I wrote before: Danish power prices are mainly high due to ordinary taxes ending up in the overall government budget.
High electricity prices in Australia are mainly due to a half-baked market liberalisation and grid replacements and upgrades.
After four or five of my posts disappeared, I’m no longer replying. Why is it that the EU-related organizations love to censor the politically incorrect? This has been going on for 500 years, ever since the invention of the printing press.
We’re a bit more open minded about the free market of ideas in the US.
It will be interesting to see if this post is censored too.
[censored, no personal comments please]
P.S. I forgot another cause of high Australian electricity prices, namely high natural gas prices:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/10/your-electricity-bill-what-are-you-paying-for-and-why-is-it-skyrocketing
Good article. The key point:
“And just as that has happened, domestic gas prices skyrocketed, as Australiaâs gas is sucked up by Queenslandâs LNG terminals and shipped overseas.”
Victoria and NSW could produce their own natgas but they don’t allow fracking, resulting in some of the highest electricity prices in the world:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2017/07/05/australias-conflicting-natural-gas-policies/#7504caf07741
I would say the key point is this:
“In previous years the Australian Energy Market Commission has found that the majority of price rises were driven by increasing network costs.
Electricity network companies came under a lot of scrutiny for those prices rises. They have a natural monopoly, since there is only one set of poles and wires delivering you your electricity. The Australian Energy Regulator concluded they were exploiting that monopoly by over-investing in their networks (known as âgold platingâ), and then passing on those costs to the consumer.”
Gas prices contributed, but the grid gold plating was the main factor.
To get back at your original point: renewables are not to blame.
Hans, no question domestic prices in Denmark and Germany are amongst the highest in the world due to support for renewables. Remains to be seen whether prices will gradually reduce based on lower cost new renewables now being developed.
Nigel, Germany has high retail electricity prices mostly due to taxes that have nothing to do with renewable energy.
Let’s look at how costs break out for retail customers in Germany…
In 2013 the average household electricity rate was about 29 ⏠cents / kWh according to the BDEW (Energy industry association).
The composition:
8.0 cent – Power Generation & Sales
6.5 cent – Grid Service Surcharge
50% of the total cost.
5.3 cent – Renewable Energy Surcharge
0.7 cent – Other Surcharges (CHP-Promotion, Offshore liability,…)
21% of the total cost
In addition there are some taxes & fees that go straight into the government’s bank account:
2.1 cent – EcoTax (federal government)
1.8 cent – Concession fees (local governments)
4.6 cent – Value added tax (19% on all of the above) – (federal, state & local governments)
29% of the total cost.
So, are subsidies for RE making German electricity more expensive?
Yes, 21% of the total is due to RE.
But at the same time adding RE to their grid has caused a very large decrease in the wholesale cost of electricity. Year ahead contracts were in the 50 to 60 EU/MWh range between 2010 and 2012. By late 2015 they had fallen to under 30 EU/MWh.
Furthermore, the support for renewables is temporary. Very soon the first round of FiTs, the most expensive, will expire and the 21% portion will begin to shrink.
So to answer your question –
“Remains to be seen whether prices will gradually reduce based on lower cost new renewables now being developed.”
Wholesale prices have been dropping for years – over a 50% drop.
Retail prices will now begin dropping as the investment in cheaper, low carbon energy is being paid off.
In Denmark 59% of the electricity bill is due to regular taxes, only 9% is due to the PSO from which renewables and CHP are supported.
http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-tops-eu-for-energy-fees.html
In Germany the EEG surcharge makes up 24% of the electricity bill, but thismainly because of legacy costs from the time renewables were still expensive. In 2020 the expensive legacy systems will start to drop out of the system and the surcharge will decrease. Countries starting with renewables will not have to pay these legacy costs and can start with the current cheap renewables.
Suggesting that other countries will get Danish or German level of electricity prices when they expand their use of renewables is therefore highly misleading.
Thanks for that link, Hans. I hadn’t seen a tax breakdown for Denmark.
“The issue surfaced after Eurelectric, the union for Europeâs energy industry, produced a report that showed that the actual energy price in Denmark only accounted for 32 percent of the final energy bill received by customers in 2015.
The report (here in English) showed that VAT and an energy tax accounted for 59 percent of the bill, while the remaining 9 percent made up the PSO tax, which goes to supporting sustainable energy.
Aagaard contended that Danes who have electric heating pumps in their homes are taxed six times as much for their energy compared to Danes who use oil burners.”
Let me list some sample wholesale electricity prices Euro/MWh – Q4, 2015
UK 52.3
France 40.5
Netherlands 37.9
Poland 36.8
Germany 33.2
Denmark 23.8
Hans, Germany’s EEG surcharge may or may not decline, but for sure the transmission charge will not decline so overall domestic prices in Germany very likely to remain much higher than the UK and France. Germany’s transmission charges now have to go up sharply to cover the near doubling of transmission capacity to accommodate renewables. E.g. Suedlink at >ÂŁ16bn.
All I hear from renewables advocates is excuses for the higher costs like don’t worry prices will come down – that’s just not good enough. Also attempts to whitewash renewables role in contributing to the problems in S. Australia.
Okay – Denmark’s taxes are high. But here is another view suggesting the Government is concerned that building more wind capacity would make electricity more unaffordable and drive consumers towards polluting alternatives:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/13/windswept-denmark-says-wind-energy-has-become-too-expensive/
With great trepidation I opened your link to the Daily Caller. It’s like someone asking to read an amazing fact in the National Enquirer.
Upon reading I stumbled on this –
“Now, green taxes make up 66 percent of Danish electricity bills.”
Er, it’s 9%.
So I opened up the link where the Daily Caller got its data and the article does not report what the Caller publishes.
Here’s a copy from the source page –
“The two thirds of Danes’ electricity bills that goes to taxes covers such things as VAT, energy policy levies and a nine percent PSO (Public Service Obligation) tariff, which goes to support renewable energy development.”
The VAT has nothing to do with ‘green’. It is, as you well know, a sales tax that goes into the general tax revenue.
Energy policy revenues are the sort of taxes European countries have long put on electricity and fuel in order to drive efficiency. Nothing to do with “green” generation.
“… a nine percent PSO (Public Service Obligation) tariff, which goes to support renewable energy development.”
The Daily Caller simply lied.
(Why was I not surprised?)
Now, why is the PSO being eliminated? Because electricity prices have become so high as the Caller claims?
“A majority in Parliament has agreed to reduce the total PSO tax â a green tax that companies and private energy consumers must pay to support the development of sustainable energy sources.
The agreement â which achieved a majority through the support of Socialdemokratiet, Dansk Folkeparti, Radikale, Venstre, Socialistisk Folkeparti, Liberal Alliance and Konservative â is in response to the EU Commissionâs criticism that the PSO system goes against EU law and must be changed by the end of the year.”
Due to pressure from the EU.
http://cphpost.dk/news/government-agrees-to-cut-pso-tax.html
The Caller links a source that clearly talks about the EU as the reason the PSO is being eliminated.
https://www.b.dk/politiko/regeringen-vil-afskaffe-groen-milliardafgift
Please don’t bring Daily Caller junk here anymore. It might mislead those who are not critical readers.
@ Nigel: costs of renewables have already come down to a competitive level. Due to the way the E.E.G. was set up the old high FiTs are still paid to the owners of older systems. These are legacy costs that are not relevant for the investment decisions of today.
In other words: it would be silly not to build cheap renewables today because Germany is still paying old systems a high FiT.
@ nigel west – the grid costs will rise slightly on the high volatge level – correct. but since also integration of the heating and the traffic sector is on the way – which will reduce the demand for gas and oil, but increase the demand for electricity, grid costs are likely to be distribted on many more kWh than today. The midvoltage and low voltage grids in germany can easily handle much higher amounts of power consumption, so of the 7,5ct/kWh end users here pay approximately for the grid service, the 1-1,5ct/kWh for the high voltager supply are likely to go up, but the 6-6,5 ct/kWh part for mid and low voltage are likely to remain constand or to fall in the comming years.
“the 7,5ct/kWh end users here pay approximately for the grid service”
Do you know why this cost is so high? I would think that the German grid has been in place for a long time and most of the installation costs paid off.
@Bob: A combination of reasons:
-Energy intensive industry is exempt from the grid surcharge. The number of companies enjoying this exemption has gradually increased. As a result households and small companies have to carry more and more of the burden. (The same is true fro the renewable energy surcharge)
The German transmission grid is indeed very old. This means not only that it has been written off fianancially, but also large parts of it have reached the end of their technical lifespan. For example in 2005 many pre-war masts crumpled because the steel they were made of could no longer withstand winter conditions.
When the utilities, and later the separated grid operators became commercial companies they first started milking out the grid and postponed necessary maintenance and investments. Now they are catching up, of course with guaranteed profits.
And of course there are investments specifically for renewable energy (which RE opponents like to cherry pick out of the mix and present as sole cause): the connection of off-shore wind parks and the strengthening of the north south connections in the transmission grid. The latter would have been necessary anyhow because originally many new coal power plants were planned in the north of Germany.
The US state of Iowa went from 27.5% wind in 2013 to 43.8% in the first quarter of 2017.
(The US was in the wind game along with Denmark from early on. It’s not like there’s a lot of catching up to do.)
Yes, western Iowa is definitely in a wind power sweet spot, along with North Dakota on the north down to the Texas Panhandle. While those areas don’t have the wind potential of Denmarkâa tiny peninsula in the middle of the North Seaâthose states should take advantage of that wind if they want.
But surely the Mid-Atlantic and the Southern states and the West Coast shouldn’t be forced to put up expensive windmills with little wind to turn them, right?
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/80m_wind/USwind300dpe4-11.jpg
Who is saying that all states should have the same (renewable)energy mix?
With larger hub-heights even in the states you mention there are areas with sufficient wind to make wind energy viable.
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg
http://www.tindallcorp.com/120m-map/
Your idea that wind energy is expensive is really outdated.
Germany mainly has “little wind” compared to the mid west, still newest tender results are at 4,38ct/kWh, which is about 2/3 of the costs which a new lignite plant has, the cheapest conventional source of power in germany.
it’s “cheap” renewables today, not “expensive”. Times have changed.
Even better, check out the NREL wind resource maps using 140 meter hub heights.
https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/326
The Southeast is wind rich.
All the way up the Atlantic coast to New York there are excellent sites for onshore wind.
But the best wind production for both far eastern and far western states is mainly offshore. Along the Pacific there are very large areas where the wind resource makes that of the Midwest look puny. We should be tapping into that wind soon using floating wind turbines.
Also in the West are excellent wind resources in Wyoming and Montana. Currently a massive wind farm is being built in Wyoming and will be connected to the Intermountain Intertie (HVDC) transmission line.
Having no solar panel at the place 100% of that sunlight is lost as heat. So the efficiency of the solar panel is quite irrelevant, it is just a factor in the cost to colect the power of the sunlight – the higher the efficiency, the less modules are needed for the same power output.
And the shares of electricity production changes, in the US and about everywhere else. In germany, the share of wind solar, hydro and biomass this year is already 38% so far this year, and not producing the slightest problems. The same will happen in the US, squeezing out conventional power generation.
Following up on ‘it depends on the grid’ – take a look at the image 8.1 at this link –
https://goo.gl/8cbAX4
In 2014 6 US grids were dirty enough so that the most efficient ICEVs (hybrids) caused less CO2 emissions than did EVs. 10 US grids were clean enough so that EVs caused less CO2 emissions than hybrids.
That’s ~3 year old data. Lots of migration from coal to NG, wind and solar has happened during that time so EVs are even better today.
If you want to compare efficiencies you have to compare aplles-with-apples: sunlight to movement.
Of the solar radiation falling on plants less then one percent is converted in chemical energy stored in the plant material. Only a very small fraction of plants are fossilized. During the fossilisation process there will be losses as well. Fossil fuels thus have already lost the comparison with photovoltaics before they left the ground.
in other words: comparison of efficiency is a bit silly. Comparison of CO2 emissions makes more sense.
Dependent on where you live [1] an electric car currently may or may not save CO2 emissions compared to FF cars. However, in the long run less and less fossil fuel will be used for power production and EVs will thus perform better and better. As we have learned from computers and photovoltaics, deployment drives technology development so we should not wait with EVs until the grid is 100% renewable everywhere,but build and use them, driving down cost and driving up efficiency in the mean time
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html
“However, in the long run less and less fossil fuel will be used for power production and EVs will thus perform better and better.”
I couldn’t agree more. But, as Voltaire said, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Hybrid gasolineâelectric cars are considerably more efficient than pure gasoline or diesel cars and as such provide an excellent means to transition to pure EVs. Infrastructure is expensive and a 30% grid capacity increase âmuch less the electrical generating capacityâ to accommodate all EVs will take decades to build. Why on earth shouldn’t we encourage hybrids while waiting on those massive infrastructure changes? Reactionary “fossil fuels are evil!” distractions are just that, distractions from real, meaningful progress.
It’s hard to see how it will take decades to build out renewables. If we decide we want to do it.
There’s nothing complex about building a wind or solar farm. It’s pretty much standard commercial construction. There are thousands of firms that can build multi story buildings. Wind and solar farms are simpler.
Hybrids do make more sense, environmentally, than straight ICEVs. But they’re no long term solution. And with affordable EVs arriving there’s no reason to be distracted by hybrids.
Let’s just get on with the job that needs to be done.
I’ve been designing my larger solar system that I intend to install when I get my EV. Hopefully about a year from now. I need to make sure self-driving is pretty much nailed down before I commit. (I intend for this to be my last car.)
Expanding grids only needs time on the side of political decisions. The construction it self is located in the region of months.
Political decisions can take everything from one hour to one century. In a democracy it depends on the population.
But expanding grids works much faster than building a SMR in every village. Even without significant political support today.
Some good points raised in this article, and yes there are vast differences between Nuclear and renewables there are also the similarities brought forth in the article.
Expectations are often being raised high in the renewable sector. New milestones in generation are important, but often they are being over hyped. Its all too common to pick out the best case predictions and run with the news as if its a guaranteed outcome.
Scalability is also a problem. Batteries that work for small applications do not work on a larger scale as of yet. Battery storage may eventually work for regional grids, but there may well be some problems on the road to large scale storage.
And yes, waste disposal from renewables is already starting to be a bit of a problem. Most of the growth in solar and wind of the last few years has not, as of yet, started generating piles of worn out turbines, blades and solar cells. At the moment they “recycle” the metal out of a lot of these components by burning off the insulation… There is no good system in place now to recycle the large amount of solar and wind waste we will be seeing.
A little cautionary article, we should consider some of the possible bumps ahead.
“Battery technology improvements will be needed to overcome renewable energyâs intermittency problem and the current cost disadvantage of electric vehicles”
Wrong. And wrong.
We could easily build 100% RE grids using pump-up hydro storage. It’s a very proven technology, can be installed in a wide variety of places, and is affordable enough. Batteries are already good enough and cheap enough to do short term energy shifting. From here on it’s just a matter of making good enough better.
Same for EV batteries. They are good enough and affordable right now. They’ll almost certainly get better so it’s just a matter of making a good thing better.
” As every new nuclear reactor project was bigger than its predecessors, so was its complexity, greatly adding to the cost (on a per MW basis) to build, operate and maintain the plant.”
That’s because if one does the math, bigger is cheaper when it comes to nuclear reactors and wind turbines.
de Vries, if you expect to make a living being a strategy consult in the energy field you better get on top of current battery technology.
We’re at the point at which it starts to become cheaper to manufacture a long distance EV than a same-feature ICEV.
There’s no need for a 1,500 mile range. There’s really no important need for more than a couple hundred mile range for almost all drivers. Drive 3+ hours, take a lunch break while your car charges. Drive another 3 hours. Take a little break for a partial charge. You’ll arrive at the end of a 500 mile drive day about the same time as someone driving a gasmobile. (Unless they pack a baloney sandwich and pee in a bottle.)
There may be a few people who need 300 mile or a bit more range so that they can frequently drive 600 miles a day with only a lunch break. Have you ever met anyone who drove that much? I haven’t.
Range anxiety? What there actually is is range anxiety anxiety. People with very little or no experience with EVs worry about getting stranded. When people start driving an EV that anxiety over possible anxiety quickly goes away.
Thanks for your comment Bob. As you mentioned yourself, batteries are “on their way” to making EVs more economical than ICE. Battery technology is not there yet, is the general consensus on the subject (I believe the article links to the recent McKinsey article on the subject). The main point of the article is that if battery R&D is not focused properly, we might never get there. Essentially I am arguing “don’t focus R&D on range or charging time, because considering where batteries are now, these are not really key issues in the mind of most consumers. Instead focus relentlessly on reducing battery complexity in order to reduce batter cost”. Thanks again.
“Battery technology is not there yet”
Battery technology is there now. We can drive 200 to 300 miles between charges. We can recharge 80% is a reasonable amount of time. We can drive a 500 mile day and arrive soon after someone driving an ICEV (while paying far less per mile). And by simply plugging in at night we get up every morning with fully charged batteries capable of far more range than almost every one needs on a normal day.
The question is whether battery price is there yet.
Where is “yet”? I’m going to paste in some “yets” from various sources…
In a major 2013 analysis, âGlobal EV Outlook: Understanding the Electric Vehicle Landscape to 2020,â the International Energy Agency estimated that electric vehicles would achieve cost parity with internal combustion engine vehicles when battery costs hit $300 per kWh of storage capacity.
http://www.iea.org/publications/globalevoutlook_2013.pdf
âThe single most important factor in achieving a compelling and affordable mass-market BEV [battery electric vehicle] is its relative cost,â Nykvist and Nilsson wrote. âIt is commonly understood that the cost of battery packs needs to fall to below US$150 per kWh in order for BEVs to become cost-competitive on par with internal combustion vehicles.â
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/electric-vehicle-batteries-are-getting-cheaper-much-faster-than-we-expected/
âThe tipping point for the mass market to move from internal combustion engines to EVs is between $US250 and$US300/kWh. Once it gets to $US100/kWh, it is all over.
I think we will get to $US250/kWh by 2020. By 2030, when batteries are at $100/kWh, gasoline vehicles will be obsolete. Not on their way out, obsolete,â said Mr. Seba to RENew Economy, while noting that he thinks that âmass migrationâ to EVs will start between 2018 to 2020.
http://insideevs.com/at-100kwh-it-is-all-over-for-the-internal-combustion-engine-energy-expert/
Most analysis seems to define “battery” as battery pack, not battery cell price. So where are we in hitting that $100 to $150/kWh zone for battery packs?
GM is paying LG Chem $145/kWh for cells. Add in about 20% to convert those cells to packs, so roughly $175/kWh.
Tesla was paying ‘less than $190/kWh’ over a year ago. In fact, possibly as little as $180/kWh in October 2014 (Sam Jaffe of Navigant).
When the Tesla/Panasonic Gigafactory is running at full scale it is expected that the cost of batteries will drop at least 30%. That’s $130/kWh. And that statement was made well before it was realized that the Gigafactory would be much more efficient than originally thought.
We’re in the zone.
Where are costs likely to get based on current technology? A materials cost breakdown that I saw claimed about $60/kWh. The difference between $60 and where we are now is largely inefficient manufacturing. As the Gigafactory and even more efficient factories appear we should see further drops in battery costs. (Tesla seems to be about to announce four more to start construction soon.)
A new technology that increases capacity and or lowers cost? That would be great, but it’s not a requirement.
Thanks again Bob.
When I talk about “battery technology” the price of the technology is part of the equation – I am certain that we can actually do a lot more than 300 mile batteries that recharge 80% in 30 minutes, but it would be far from economical in the competition with ICEVs.
Where battery technology still needs to go is delivering the service (I agree with you, we are largely there) at a competitive price. On the latter point, according to a McKinsey report from this year “Despite battery costs falling from ~1,000 per kWh in 2010 to ~$227 per kWh in 2016, battery costs continue to make EVs more costly than comparable ICE-powered variants. Current projections put EV battery pack prices below $190/kWh by the end of the decade, and suggest the potential for pack prices to fall below $100/kWh by 2030.” https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-dropped-80-6-years-227kwh-tesla-190kwh/
I.e., there remains a way to go as far as the cost of battery technology is concerned.
I don’t know why McKinsey stated below $190/kWh by the end of the decade when both GM and Tesla are already there. Tesla has been below $190/kWh for almost two years. GM reported that they have contracted with LG Chem for cells at $145/kWh which makes battery packs under $190.
LG Chem makes the batteries for lots of other companies. Others aren’t likely to pay more than LG charges GM.
McKinsey claims that EV manufacturers can’t make a profit without a large drop in battery prices. That’s bull. Tesla now makes a very large gross profit margin with its Model S and X sales. The company isn’t profitable overall largely due to low volume production and spending on growth.
When Tesla is selling hundreds of thousands of cars a year rather than less than one hundred thousand their non-manufacturing costs will be spread thinly over each vehicle manufactured.
500,000 vehicles with a starting sales price of $35k and a 25% GPM. That’s over $4 billion a year which will cover a lot more than administrative overhead.
Batteries, it’s standard practice to talk about technology and cost separately. Yes, different technologies can have different costs but companies can produce the same technology at different prices.
Eventually we probably will be able to drive further than 300 miles per charge and almost certainly will be able to charge faster than now. But that’s not important. What’s important is that we’ve passed the threshold where EVs are good enough to replace ICEVs for almost everyone.
Think back to Henry’s Model T. No electric starter, no electric lights, no heater, no windshield wiper, no roll up windows. But they were good enough to replace horses and buggies. Within a few years of the Model T appearing it became hard to find horses in US cities (except in parades).
Right now you can drive coast to coast with in an EV. Someone just made the trip in 52 hours, using Superchargers along the way. If you can do that then you don’t need fuel and an internal combustion engine.