Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 11 2019, @07:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-prior-to-2038 dept.

Gas Plants Will Get Crushed by Wind, Solar by 2035, Study Says

By 2035, it will be more expensive to run 90% of gas plants being proposed in the U.S. than it will be to build new wind and solar farms equipped with storage systems, according to the report Monday from the Rocky Mountain Institute. It will happen so quickly that gas plants now on the drawing boards will become uneconomical before their owners finish paying for them, the study said.

The authors of the study say they analyzed the costs of construction, fuel and anticipated operations for 68 gigawatts of gas plants proposed across the U.S. They compared those costs to building a combination of solar farms, wind plants and battery systems that, together with conservation efforts, could supply the same amount of electricity and keep the grid stable.

As gas plants lose their edge in power markets, the economics of pipelines will suffer, too, RMI said in a separate study Monday. Even lines now in the planning stages could soon be out of the money, the report found.

Hopefully our electrical distribution grid will still work.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 12 2019, @10:16AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 12 2019, @10:16AM (#893099) Journal

    Just because the battery systems are "expensive" doesn't mean that fossil fuel plants are cheaper.

    Natural gas plants aren't just fossil fuel plants. They're the cheapest sort of fossil fuel plants by a considerable margin [eia.gov] (the same link shows some advantage over battery systems in the cost department - assuming battery systems are actually as cheap as they presently are costed as - Tesla in particular may be greatly underpricing its battery systems). They have superior capability to battery systems. They don't need to be charged up in order to work. And they won't run out of energy after a few hours of operation.

    The only real advantages battery systems have is a slightly faster response time and the ability to absorb energy which is useful when the grid is so oversupplied that they need to pay someone to consume the electricity.

    Power plants are really "expensive", especially in recurring operation costs that are order of magnitude smaller for wind and solar, even with battery systems.

    I explicitly mentioned that the natural gas plant was replacing the role of the battery systems not wind and solar. Battery systems need to be charged in order to work. That's considerable recurring operation costs right there. And the distributed nature of solar and wind means considerable energy losses.

    Further, you're ignoring the camel in the tent, reliability. Batteries do make these renewable sources somewhat more reliable. But natural gas can actually replace capacity, should bad weather or accident take substantial generation off the grid. The capacity of natural gas won't degrade like batteries or solar will.

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday September 13 2019, @07:04PM (2 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Friday September 13 2019, @07:04PM (#893811)

    Battery systems need to be charged in order to work. That's considerable recurring operation costs right there.

    How does it cost money to keep batteries charged? They're supposed to collect the off-peak power that otherwise would be wasted.

    Meanwhile, the gas plant needs to be running at its basic capacity 24/7, because scaling generation is slow, running too low is wastefully inefficient, and the only thing more complicated and expensive than turning it off is turning it back on again when it's needed.

    It's those scaling costs that make fossil fuel plants unsuited to handling cloudy days in a solar deployment.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @10:01PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 13 2019, @10:01PM (#893872) Journal

      Meanwhile, the gas plant needs to be running at its basic capacity 24/7

      No, it doesn't.

      because scaling generation is slow, running too low is wastefully inefficient, and the only thing more complicated and expensive than turning it off is turning it back on again when it's needed.

      Batteries are pretty slow on the scaling generation too (particularly since they don't actually generate anything!), running natural gas too low is much less wastefully inefficient than running at a loss, and the whole point of natural gas is that it turns on and off really efficiently and quickly.

      It's those scaling costs that make fossil fuel plants unsuited to handling cloudy days in a solar deployment.

      What would those scaling costs be again? Because you have yet to mention one.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 13 2019, @10:13PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 13 2019, @10:13PM (#893878) Journal
      On this comment:

      How does it cost money to keep batteries charged? They're supposed to collect the off-peak power that otherwise would be wasted.

      Only if there such waste. I already granted that is possible when companies are paying to get rid of their electricity. But otherwise it replaces some other use (for example, off-peak refrigeration, cryptocurrency mining, etc). The user might not be paying much for that electricity, but it's not a genuine waste.