In US Midwest, Most Utilities Required To Meet Renewable Portfolio Standards On Track Or Nearly So

[hatrack]

An energy policy wave swept across the Midwest a decade ago as seven states adopted laws from 2006 to 2009 requiring utilities to add increasing amounts of wind and solar energy. The aim of the clean energy mandates was clear — to slash greenhouse gases and other power plant emissions and generate new jobs and investment.

A decade later, most utilities in states with renewable portfolio standards are either meeting or on track to meet the targets. And some of them, like Minnesota-based Xcel Energy Inc., are announcing plans to blow past clean energy goals, often literally, by adding hundreds of megawatts of new wind capacity. If there's an exception, it's Illinois, which is lagging its 25 percent RPS adopted a decade ago because of an unintended conflict with the state's retail choice law that restricted funding for renewable energy procurement. But that's changing quickly with adoption of the 2016 Future Energy Jobs Act, which revamped the RPS and specifically requires 4,300 megawatts of new solar and wind power.

Backers of the renewable energy laws — even some of the utilities subject to them — agree RPS policies played an important role in helping jump-start clean energy transitions in states that adopted them. And in the process, the blossoming of wind and solar energy, along with cheap natural gas and erosion in energy demand, has hastened the retirement of coal plants.

Nationally, about half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity generation and capacity from 2000 to 2016 was tied to state RPS requirements in the 29 states that have them, according to the most recent annual report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. And compliance costs nationally have been modest, averaging 1.6 percent of retail electricity bills through 2015.

EDIT

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060087435

[SWBTATTReg]

1. In MO, our Utility company AmerUE, had to install a certain % of renewable energy, using

solar farms to do so. They have installed quite a few in northern MO, which I'm very glad that they did, knowing that part of the energy I'm using is from this source.

[NNadir]

2. I guess we're saved then. On the other hand, it's pretty damned hot out there.

4,300 "megawatts" of a solar power plant that is available 10% of the time is the equivalent of a very small gas plant, a 430 MW plant operating at 100% capacity utilization.

4300 "megawatts" of a wind plant operating 30% of the time is the equivalent of a 1,300 MW power plant, an average sized power plant operating at 100"% capacity utilization.

According to the EIA, in 2017, US energy consumption was 103.7 exajoules. Dividing this number by the number of seconds in a year, we find that US average continuous power consumption was 3.27 trillion watts, or just under 3,270,000 MW.

This suggests that the "renewable energy portfolio" (at best, if it's all wind) amounts to 0.04% of US average power demand, and of course, this does count the energy cost of firing up a gas plant when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

I'm impressed.

We should declare victory and forget about how damned hot it is this week all over this planet.

[progree]

3. That 4300 MW is just for Illinois.

Last edited Thu Jul 5, 2018, 10:48 AM - Edit history (5)

Assuming energy production is proportional to the population, Illinois population is 12.8 M and U.S. population is 325.7 M --

That 4300 MW comes to about 1.0% of Illinois average power demand. FWIW.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2016/12/07/illinois-future-energy-jobs-bill-shows-states-are-taking-the-lead-to-build-the-clean-energy-economy/

Another problem is energy and electrical energy are two different things. In a thermal power plant, 60% or more of the input energy is thrown away to produce those electrical KWH. In usage, the electrical KWH is used more efficiently than the BTUs in natural gas or gasoline or fuel oil for most applications where direct usage of fuels is even plausible.

On the other hand, solar and wind energy are of less value to the utility because of its intermittency ... (the utility needs firm capacity as well as energy production).

That said, the 1.0% is not all that superbig or a "game changer".

Edited To Add:

According to Lawrence Livermore energy flow diagrams.
Xttps://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2017_United-States.png
(replace the "Xttps" with "https" in the above)


For the U.S., Solar and wind is 0.775 + 2.350 = 3.125 Quads in 2017
Total U.S. energy consumption: 97.7 Quads

So solar + wind = 3.125 / 97.7 = 3.20% of the total.

Up from 1.61% in 2012

I added the indented lines below after NNadir's post#4 just to clarify the last 2 lines above in case others were confused.

U.S. Solar + wind energy = 1.61% of total U.S. energy in 2012

U.S. Solar + wind energy = 3.20% of total U.S. energy in 2017

So U.S. solar + wind energy has grown from 1.61% of total U.S. energy in 2012 to 3.20% of total U.S. energy in 2017.

First 2 columns are energy in Trillion BTUs
"S+W" is Solar + Wind
"Total" is total U.S. energy consumption
"S+W%" is solar and wind as percent of total energy consumption

Year ` S+W ` ` Total ` `S+W%
2010 ` 1,050 ` 98,000 ` 1.07%
2012 ` 1,530 ` 95,000 ` 1.61%
2017 ` 3,125 ` 97,700 ` 3.20%

Backquotes (`) in above are for spacing.

----------------------------------------------------------------
One step closer, that’s what exxon people say,
one step closer, at the end of every day,
cause we’re dedicated to
finding energy for you

energy – for a strong america.

from the sunshine , and from deep beneath the sea,
ever searching for tomorrow’s energy
for the children on the way, it will be their world someday

energy – for a strong america.

here at exxon, we pursue a long range plan
here at exxon, cause the future just began
it’s a goal within our reach that can help our fellow man

energy – for a strong america.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyrics & Music by Steve Karmen (1976)

Damn, can't find the music anywhere.

[NNadir]

4. Really? All this percent talk for the last half a century has prevented climate change.

I am aware of the laws of thermodynamics.

I am also aware that the sun goes down, and the wind sometimes doesn't blow.

Now, if you were aware of the laws of thermodynamics, you might contemplate how much energy is wasted when a gas plant shuts down for two hours because the wind is blowing, and then needs to be fired up again.

You might also contemplate, if you were thinking about math, whether it is easier to grow "by 1.2%" something that is 3.12 (of anything) or 1.2% 97.7.

1.2% of 97.7 is 1.17 which is 37.5% of all the wind and solar energy we have on this planet, where, in case you haven't noticed, the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste as represented by only one of its constituents, carbon dioxide has reached 411 ppm, as of May of this year.

I'm an old man. My whole damned life I've been listening to this horseshit "percent talk" about wind and solar. I even used to take it seriously.

Right now it's 2018. Expensive redundant trash that is not sustainable - I'm referring to wind and solar - that has experienced half a century of wild cheering and can "boast" of producing amounts of energy so trivial that no one would notice if they disappeared, which they do regularly because they're unreliable, is a failure.

Big time.

History will not forgive us, nor should it.

[Finishline42]

5. Iowa produces over 30% of the states electricity with wind

And Texas is over 10%.

The Grain State Express (a HVDC transmission line that would have brought wind alley electricity as far east as IN/KY) was blocked by a single county in MO. How much more wind would have been developed had it been approved and built? It was the building of transmission lines in Texas that has allowed them to grow over 10%.

The problem with counting electricity usage is that it doesn't get into when it's used or how its sold. Wind and solar are the cheapest providers of electricity when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. They don't have to pay for fuel and have virtually zero labor costs. In Colorado it's cheaper to build new wind and solar than it is to operate coal plants - which is why they are being shut down. As the use of wind and solar increases it reduces how much thermal plants are used and as a result increases their cost of operation. Which means the economics are clearly in favor of building more (being a mfg product - building more means costs go down and innovation goes up).

Trump is scrambling to use antiquated DOD regs to get coal and nuclear plants paid over market just to keep them operating.

It's a process and we are headed in the right direction - just not fast enough.

[Finishline42]

6. Actually Texas generated over 17% of it's electricity from wind in 2017

From the Dallas Morning News:

"The days of wind power occupying a niche space in the American electricity market are long gone," said Amy Farrell, the industry group's senior vice president of government and public affairs. "Today, wind is a mainstream integral part of our energy supply and economy."

The association highlighted a report from investment company Lazard saying that wind energy costs dropped 4 percent last year. That follows a cost decline of two-thirds between 2009 and 2016. That report also indicated wind was the cheapest energy option in some areas, even without its current tax credits.

An effort to accelerate the phase-out of renewable tax credits was attempted late last year but mostly failed in the U.S. Senate.

In Texas, electricity generation capacity from wind surpassed generation capacity from coal in December, making it No. 2 behind natural gas. Nationally, wind-based capacity has more than doubled since 2010.

Wind generated 17.4 percent of Texas' electricity last year. At its highest points, March and April, wind accounted for about one-quarter of the state's electricity. On at least one day, it accounted for half of the state's electricity generation.

Still, Texas wind farms, which are at the mercy of weather patterns, fall well short of regularly generating as much electricity as coal. In 2017, coal plants produced 54 percent more electricity even though their capacities were close.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/01/30/texas-global-leader-wind-oil

The last bit from the article backs up what NNadir keeps pointing out. But the trend is decidedly against coal. Texas utilities have plans to close 4 old coal plants. And more solar is being built in West Texas.

The cost curve is working against coal and nuclear and to some degree even Natgas. We have seen an increase in the use of batteries by utilities to extend the use of wind and solar. My bet is that will increase even more in the future.