‘Renewable’ Advocates’ Battery Bet Proves Prohibitively Expensive
‘Renewable’ energy proponents often claim that the problem of intermittent generation from wind and solar power can be addressed with batteries
In an opinion piece on Friday, for example, a Reuters columnist heaped praise on batteries as the technology that would bring about “net zero” — the amount of energy consumed being offset by the amount of ‘renewable’ energy generated.
“In little more than three decades, batteries have moved from an afterthought in energy systems to one of the defining technologies of the transition away from fossil fuels,” Global Energy Transition columnist Gavin Maguire wrote.
Maguire makes no mention of the fact that the globe has exponentially increased the volume of ‘fossil fuels’ it consumes – a decades-long trend that shows no reversal – nor does he mention that the amount of energy stored in batteries is measured in minutes.
Researchers at the National Center for Energy Analytics set out to find out if it’s possible to power the grid with wind, solar, and batteries.
Their report, released Thursday, casts considerable doubt on ‘renewable’ energy proponents’ promise that batteries can resolve the problems of intermittency with wind and solar.
“This study demonstrates that a wind-solar-battery policy to meet electricity demand is physically implausible, cost-prohibitive, and unjustifiable based on goals to reduce CO2 emissions,” the report concludes.
Staggering Costs
Jonathan Lesser, senior fellow with the NCEA, and Mitch Rolling, director of research at Always On Energy Research, used the PJM Interconnection system, the nation’s largest grid operator, to evaluate the cost and feasibility of a system powered by wind, solar, and batteries.
The operator supplies electricity to 67 million people living in 13 states and the District of Columbia.
The researchers looked at three different scenarios.
One evaluated the PJM grid running on wind, solar, batteries, and existing nuclear power plants. Under this scenario, all coal and natural gas generation is retired.
In the second scenario, batteries are used along with new and existing gas-powered generators, as well as new nuclear power plants.
In the last scenario, battery storage is added to replace gas-fired generators during peak demand.
To compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar under the ‘renewable’-only scenario, the analysis found, PJM would need to add roughly 10 times the total generation capacity by 2045 than would be needed under the natural gas and nuclear scenario.
That extra capacity would not only serve daily and seasonal variations in supply and demand [but also accommodate days with] little to no wind or sunshine.
The study also found that to pay for this ideological ‘net-zero’ grid with no new nuclear facilities, ratepayers served by PJM would need to fork out over $4 trillion over the next 20 years.
Low Benefit for High Cost
Recent estimates of the social cost of ‘carbon’ – the (alleged) economic damages caused by emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere – range from $180 per ton in 2025 to $320 per ton in 2045.
The authors note that the rationale for such a grid is that it will reduce ‘carbon’ emissions that (allegedly) contribute to global warming. The study estimated that the annual costs of avoided emissions come to $771 per ton.
The researchers concluded that even in terms of emissions reduction, the ‘renewable’-only scenario costs more than the ‘benefits’ produced.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Engineered Systems Magazine