“It’s no wonder there’s increasing debate over expanding California’s grid into a regional system. Meanwhile, the economic viability of traditional generators will continue to suffer unless they, like their renewable energy counterparts, can derive benefit from above-market power contracts. Ultimately, it will be California ratepayers that pay the steep price for this impossible dream.”
As California considers a 100% renewable-energy mandate, the state’s legislators should be asking what happens to California’s energy profile when the sun doesn’t shine and the winds don’t blow.
This month, the national press hyped how California renewables met a record-breaking 67% of the state’s electricity generation. It happened during the 3 pm hour on a Saturday, the day before Mother’s Day. We checked the numbers, and sure enough wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewables had a combined output of 14,215 megawatts out of a total generation of 21,390 megawatts in that hour. It was discernibly a sunny day with the hours of highest penetration of renewables between 8 am and 7 pm.
No doubt, the timing of this impressive event was opportune. This month California’s Senate is considering passage of SB 100, a bill which seeks to accelerate the state’s renewables mandate to 50% by 2026, 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2045.
What better way to convince idealistic legislators to enact a 100% mandate, than declare the state has already skipped past the current 50% by 2030 threshold? At this rate, why not mandate 110%, 200%, or better?
Not so fast. The bigger question state legislators should be asking is what happens to California’s energy profile when the sun doesn’t shine and the winds don’t blow. We looked at the energy production figures for the available days in May (1-28) and compared them to the same period in January of this year. The aggregate data shows California is nowhere near meeting its lofty goals.
| Fuel Type | January 1-28, 2017 | May 1-28, 2017 |
| Wind | 5% | 8% |
| Solar | 5% | 15% |
| Other Renewables[1] | 7% | 7% |
| Non-Renewables[2] | 83% | 70% |
| Total | 100% | 100% |
| [1] Includes geothermal, biomass, biogas and small hydro
[2] Includes imports and large hydro |
||
Of the 672 hours represented in January (28 days x 24 hours), 73% or 489 hours showed renewables producing less than 20% of the total generation. In May, performance was much better, with most hours producing more than 20%; however when we omit solar from the mix in each month, renewables (including wind) produced less than 20% in all but 7 hours in January and less than 20% in most of the hours of May.
| January 1-28, 2017 | May 1-28, 2017 | |||
| Renewables | Generation (MWh) | Hrs Generation <20% | Generation (MWh) | Hrs Generation <20% |
| WITH Solar | 2,818,892 | 489 Hrs (73%) | 5,204,519 | 195 Hrs (29%) |
| NO Solar | 1,895,072 | 665 Hrs (99%) | 2,670,267 | 483 Hrs (72%) |
Obviously, policy debates cannot be based on the renewable energy performance in one hour of one day when demand is low. Sacramento could vote all-day-long to raise energy mandates, but none of those votes will make renewables perform at the levels now being discussed. Banking on storage technology might make up for some of the difference, but that’s not proven at the scale needed and the cost will be exorbitant.
Meanwhile, the push for more transmission is becoming urgent in order to export generation to neighboring states rather than the other way around. As excess megawatt-hours of renewables during the daylight hours collapse real-time market prices, utilities in other states are looking to join the California ISO so they can buy the cheap power — that is, power that’s heavily subsidized by California ratepayers.
It’s no wonder there’s increasing debate over expanding California’s grid into a regional system. Meanwhile, the economic viability of traditional generators will continue to suffer unless they, like their renewable energy counterparts, can derive benefit from above-market power contracts. Ultimately, it will be California ratepayers that pay the steep price for this impossible dream.
California Senate President Pro Tem, Kevin De León, touts his bill as a jobs creator. Maybe so, but before he and his fellow legislators ram this policy through, they owe it to their constituents to wake up from the renewable energy fantasy and recognize the truth right in front of them.
What is never taken into account is the fact that Baseload (Coal or Nuclear) has to be sitting idle in parallel to what “renewables” are generating.
EVERY kWH “renewables” generate is DUPLICATE generation and is generated with no alignment to meet DEMAND that is needed at that particular time.
The rotation of the sun is in control of the levers of electricity generation.
Perhaps, for the sake of ineptitude satisfaction, the policy should be based on one hour or, even, one second of one day, and when California reaches 100% for one second, they can declare success at last. Then, they can start working on climate distortion such that all elements that caused such a terrific occurrence can be replicated at will and continuously.
Yes Brook, and the further problem is that baseload providers lose revenue whenever there is power from wind or solar. Increasing the renewables feedins hastens the bankruptcy of baseload companies, or requires subsidies for them as well. Gail Tverberg:
“In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today. There are too many costs outside building the devices themselves. It is these secondary costs that are problematic. Also, the presence of intermittent electricity disrupts competitive prices, leading to electricity prices that are far too low for other electricity providers, including those providing electricity using nuclear or natural gas. The tiny contribution of wind and solar to grid electricity cannot make up for the loss of more traditional electricity sources due to low prices.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/climateers-tilting-at-windmills-updated/
[…] http://www.masterresource.org/california-energy-policy/california-renewables-dreaming/ […]
With the firm rebuke of Jacobson et.al. of their “100% renewables” fantasy in the 16 June issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Clack et.al, the California Assembly amended S.B. 100 on 26 June 2017 to include non-carbon- emitting generation such as nuclear and large hydro. 🙂
Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) is a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Intervenor in the current proceeding A.16-089-006 in which CGNP *OPPOSES* PG&E’s plan to abandon Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) in 2025. CGNP is an independent group of scientists, engineers, and nuclear power advocates that recognize that abandoning DCPP will lead to even higher California energy prices and increased air pollution. Please visit our website at CGNP dot org to learn more about our ground-breaking activism. Among other things, CGNP thoroughly demolished the California energy storage mirage in their over 1,000 pages of written testimony and expert oral testimony during the oral evidentiary hearings at CPUC headquarters in San Francisco.
That isn’t stopping a group of investors, etc. from proposing a new disaster in the form of large (616 feet to tip of the rotor) offshore wind turbines off California’s central coast. CGNP is supporting the inclusion of nuclear in S.B. 100 and strongly opposing the offshore wind turbines! BTW, the first large Vestas V164 wind turbine was installed offshore in the U.K. less than 10 months ago, making the V164 an experimental prototype in the California offshore wind energy proposal. You may learn more about this new boondoggle by searching for the term “Trident Winds.” This special-interest nonsense of wind power needs to be stopped as it only increases energy prices (particularly after the massive taxpayer-funded subsidies are removed) and increases air pollution, since fossil-fired generation must be operated in “back down” mode when inherently-intermittent solar and wind energy are placed on the grid.