Building on the highly acclaimed 2009 report of the same name, today the Institute for Local Self-Reliance launches Energy Self-Reliant States, a new website to provide expert analysis and policy solutions for a decentralized renewable energy future. Continue reading
Viewing all Articles Page 151 of 266
The boon of concentrating solar thermal power plants is their ability to deliver more consistent electricity, and to offer thermal storage (cheaper than batteries) to expand their daily coverage.
But it might be in serious trouble. And this time the culprit is not cheap natural gas, the Koch Brothers, nor the desert tortoise advocates.
…The relentless price declines of PV panels allows developers to build PV plants at a lower cost than their [concentrating solar thermal] CST cousins. This issue is illustrated in the following Capital Cost per watt chart (an excerpt from the upcoming GTM Research “CSP Report”). In 2010, the price to build a CSP park run by Troughs, Power Towers or Dish-Engines will cost between $5.00 and $6.55 per watt (AC). On the other hand, utility-scale PV projects can limbo below $3.50 a watt (DC).
A nice, short comparison of the cost of electricity storage with pumped hydropower and batteries.
Using pumped hydro to store electricity costs less than $100 per kilowatt-hour and is highly efficient, Chu told his energy advisory board during a recent meeting. By contrast, he said, using sodium ion flow batteries — another option for storing large amounts of power — would cost $400 per kWh and have less than 1 percent of pumped hydro’s capacity.
Of course, you need to have a river with a likely reservoir location to have any significant quantity of pumped storage, making the article’s reference to Texas a bit ironic.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, here’s a nice diagram of pumped storage from Consumers Energy:
Distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) proponents have recognized that solar is not without economies of scale – larger installations generally have lower installed costs per Watt of peak capacity. But new data suggests that these economies are significantly smaller than previously believed. This is good news for solar and great news for the renewable energy movement…. Continue reading
One of the keys to maximizing renewable energy production (decentralized or otherwise) is providing electricity storage to smooth out variabilities in wind and solar power production. Electric vehicles have a lot of promise, as the cars could provide roving storage and dispatchable power to help match supply and demand.
So could a large number of EVs actually help with the huge variations in wind that can occur? According to Claus Ekman, a researcher at the Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy in Frederiksborgvej, Denmark, it can, to an extent. Ekman recently published a paper in the journal Renewable Energy that modeled how well EVs could handle increasing wind power generation. He found that in a scenario involving 500,000 vehicles and 8 gigawatts of wind power, various strategies would reduce the excess, or lost, wind power by as much as 800 megawatts — enough to power more than 200,000 homes. Ekman calls this a “significant but not dramatic” effect on the grid. Scenarios involving 2.5 million vehicles and even more wind power show an even greater impact.
The U.S. currently has around 35 gigawatts of wind power, so it would take 2.1 million EVs to provide a similar effect in the U.S. (reducing the lost wind capacity by 10 percent of total installed capacity).
Right-Wingers Just Don’t Like the Ones Who Don’t Agree with Them. In 1787, writing in the Federalist Papers in support of state ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton argued that the proposed Supreme Court “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution.” As for judicial activism, “contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be as extensive as to affect the order of the political system.” Continue reading
How self-sufficient in energy generation could states be if they relied only on their own renewable resources? In November 2008, ILSR began to address this question in the first edition of Energy Self-Reliant States. That report included a limited set of resources – on-shore wind and rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) – and also examined the… Continue reading
The interconnection and locational benefits of [Wholesale Distributed Generation] represent a large part of the ratepayer value for projects 20 MW and under. Because the locational benefits of distribution- connected energy in terms of ratepayer and ancillary impacts have been well- documented, the FIT Coalition strongly recommends that the [Reverse Auction Mechanism] program be limited to distribution-connected projects.
The FIT Coalition’s predecessors previously provided detailed evidence for the conclusion that distribution-connected energy provides up to 35% higher value to the ratepayer than transmission-connected energy. This value difference arises from several factors, including: avoided network construction costs, avoided line losses, and avoided congestion. Furthermore, ratepayers incur an additional cost of approximately 1.5 cents for every kWh that is stepped down from the transmission grid to the distribution grid. This Transmission Access Charge is applied across the board and is a clear and immediate benefit of interconnection renewable generation to the distribution grid.
CPUC Rulemaking 08-08-009 Comments filed September 27, 2010 Continue reading
A recent University of California, Berkeley, study showed that if we hit our state’s renewable energy goals for 2020 [33%] with wholesale generation projects instead of large, remote projects, we will get hundreds of thousands more in-state jobs, tens of billions more in private investment and billions more in tax revenues. Continue reading
Building wholesale [distributed] generation projects instead of large-scale renewable energy farms in remote areas helps consumers by avoiding unnecessary costs. If energy is generated close to where it is used, the utilities do not need to build more long-distance transmission lines, and less energy is lost traveling over those lines. Consumers also pay less in “transmission access charges,” fees for converting energy from the transmission grid to the local distribution grid. Continue reading