Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hidden Costs of Renewable Fuels
I received an email from my alma mater, Brown University, which linked to this story:
A new Brown initiative with Constellation and Energy Development Partners will transform a former gravel pit in North Kingstown into Rhode Island’s highest-capacity contiguous solar generation project.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — As a major part of a campus-wide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Brown University has finalized agreements for two renewable energy projects that are expected to produce enough combined solar and wind power to offset all on-campus electricity use.
The first project — a collaboration with Constellation, a national competitive energy provider, and Providence-based Energy Development Partners (EDP) — will create Rhode Island’s highest-capacity contiguous solar generation project across a 240-acre field on a former gravel pit in North Kingstown.
The 50-megawatt (DC) solar facility is expected to deliver 40 megawatts of converted AC power to the electrical grid. And use of the former gravel pit will avoid any encroachment on neighborhoods or large-scale tree-clearing, two quality-of-life and environmental concerns commonly associated with new renewable projects.
The North Kingstown project is expected to produce enough electricity to offset about 70 percent of Brown’s annual electricity consumption generated through fossil fuels. A second renewable energy project, an 8-megawatt wind power project being developed in Texas with another energy services provider, is expected to produce enough electricity to offset the rest of Brown’s annual use.
Cost is not mentioned in the article. When you’re charging $70K a year for tuition, room, and board, you probably don’t need to worry about no stinking costs. Also not mentioned are the energy costs to make and ship the solar facility to North Kingston (and the wind power).
When all these costs are figured in, how does it compare to buying power from an electric company? It could actually increase the use of fossil fuels. And, of course, solar panels wear out, need to be replaced, and the old ones are disposed of or recycled.
But it feels good to virtue signal.
Published in Environment
Why do I feel like this information will not be widely disseminated?
You’ve changed.
Patrick Kennedy isn’t the 1st district’s representative any more. It is well known that Kennedys don’t like renewable energy facilities nearby; they prefer to buy their renewable energy at a more competitive price from other sources.
We know this part of the answer: When the non-externalized present-value costs and benefits are figured, its a worse allocation of resources.
If we consider externalities, who knows? If you are looking to feel virtuous, you don’t want to spend a lot of work on a difficult question the very acknowledgement of which shows that you are full of green poop.
We also don’t know the answer to “how much?” even ignoring externalities. Economics can’t say, with much precision or confidence, because the mathematics of economics is based on inequalities, not equalities. You’d have to pretend you know equations, even though observation of the real world has already proved that you don’t. That would violate scientific method, which requires methodological realism and logical consistency of laws.
So, the sun shines on Rhode Island “continuously”?
I think not. I think this is going to be backed up by an expensive and highly-inefficient natural gas generator. Also unmentioned.
Physics is a harsh mistress.
Yes, it will be useless during peak consumption times such as winter storms. Perhaps they could add another windmill farm near Martha’s Vineyard.
If you are going to pretend that wind power in west Texas offsets something in Rhode Island (a ranch sized state), why not just pretend to use offsets from fusion energy generated in year 2200?
I think what these “100% renewable” projects usually involve is *not* their own natural gas generator, but rather a connection to the grid to use power company facilities. So when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, they sell power to the grid, then when nighttime or weather happen, they draw on the grid….netting it out to 100% renewable in a simplistic accounting sense.
What is really happening is that they are imposing additional capital costs on the grid…for both generation and transmission…which will probably not be paid by the institution in question but spread across the entire base of grid customers.
Such a waste. If instead they utilized the same area for an optimized greenhouse or grow room complex, they could produce up to 225 million pounds of ripe tomatoes in a year.
Jo Nova’s lecture: How to Destroy a Electrical Grid in 3 Easy Steps.
Wind is even worse. Spain and Germany were seeing 9% of rated capacity, so you need to build eleven times as many as you would think.
The city I live in put solar panels on the roof of the city office building. The budgeted cost was just under $1 million. The annual savings are projected to be $10,000. In the news you had to really dig to find the initial cost. The $10,000 annual savings was mentioned in nearly every article. No one seems to care that the projected payback of 100 years exceeds the life of the solar panels.
Mark Camp
Please explain. Why can’t we calculate the total cost of a project, it’s duration and project various rates including replacement and ongoing repairs and compare it to alternatives?
“We also don’t know the answer to “how much?” even ignoring externalities. Economics can’t say, with much precision or confidence, because the mathematics of economics is based on inequalities, not equalities. You’d have to pretend you know equations, even though observation of the real world has already proved that you don’t. That would violate scientific method, which requires methodological realism and logical consistency of laws.
We got a sales pitch for a “free” installation of solar panels. Break even, as I understood it, was about 20 years assuming the electric company would continue to raise rates. In the meantime, we would be stuck with all the extra gear necessary to mount the panels and connect them to the electric system.
Later I was approached at a local store by a person wanting to sell me a “green” electric plan. I asked if he had any plans that could save me money. He did not.
What a bunch of bunk.
This video is priceless.
I suspect that 40 megawatts is the nameplate rating of the plant. I have followed a few of the larger solar plants in the Mojave desert which are much better sited, being at altitude in a clear sky and more southerly latitude, and these plants generally produce around 30% of their name plate. (By that I mean if you divide the actual kilowatt hours sold in a year after deducting parasitic losses, divided by the nameplate rating * 8760 hours per year you get a fraction of about 30% or less). This may sound really low, but if you consider its dark half the time and there are cloudy days you can see how its a struggle to get anywhere near 50%. Rhode Island ain’t the Mojave so capacity utilization won’t be that good.
Now in every case I have looked into personally, renewable power folks hype the positive impacts of the plant by erroneously using the nameplate power when it is probably less than 30% of that. It is just too politically convenient to overstate the truth.
Hey, don’t be surprised. This is the missing capability for critical thinking that results from our public education approach. You can see a lot by looking.
Or triple their weight in hemp products.
My mother bought solar panels for her house last year, against our advice, because the sales people are good at trickery. She’s getting a ‘rebate’ each year and ‘lower monthly power bills’, but at 25k, there is no possibility of ever breaking even. They also lied about the value of the panels to the house. Unless she can find a very gullible buyer there is no way the panels will add 25k (except in taxes, perhaps) to the selling price of the house.
But I suppose hucksters have always been with us. The only thing I can say is that at least we get a lot of sun around here.
Very few journalists–and I include business journalists–understand that a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour are two entirely different things. Talking about the storage capacity of a battery in kilowatts (or megawatts, or gigawatts) is like measuring the capacity of your car’s gas tank in horsepower.
If they can’t even comprehend this simple thing…which is understood by plenty of people with only a high-school education…what are the odds that they can provide any intelligent insight into energy policy alternatives?
How do they manage to sell even one of these solar panel systems if these are the numbers?
I assume by tricking gullible people. I’m really sad my mother felt she had to be one of those people.
I’m in Arizona and I get at least one phone call or one knock on my door per week in an attempt to sell solar. It is bothersome.
I don’t even like to think about all the opportunities for roof leaks a roof-top solar panel installation allows.
One of my favorite lines from Pogo: “I wonder what language the Romans used for the 24 carat bamboozle.”
Deroy Murdock gave a brilliant presentation on the 2016 National Review cruise. It was called “It’s Not Easy Being Green”. It goes through a lot of the costs of renewables, not only dollar-wise, but in environmental impacts. One of the surprising takeaways was how much negative impact there is that you never really see being analyzed. One example is the footprint of solar and wind farms – incredibly large compared to other sources of electricity.
I’m trying to reach Mr. Murdock to see if I can get a copy of his presentation, or a least a link to it. He is one of the best, if not the best, slideshow presenters out there . . .
Scalability… that is why fossil fuels… just think how much usable energy comes from a single hole in the ground.
I expect that some day scientists and engineers will come up with a cost-effective way to generate solar power. But if the giant Ivanpah solar project in the Mojave desert can’t do it, we’re clearly not there yet. How can anyone imagine they are going to get enough solar power in Rhode Island if even the Mojave desert doesn’t do it? While we’re waiting for the breakthroughs that will make solar economically viable, how about we build some state-of-the-art nuclear power plants?
How about if we allow standardized designs for nuclear plants? That would cut the costs down a huge amount, right there.
And how about we stop allowing anyone and his brother to sue potential nuclear plants for years, costing untold billions of dollars?
Then we might really see exactly how cost-effective nuclear power is compared to wind and solar.
I agree. Some years back I read that Toshiba was working on a plan to build modular nuclear reactors on an assembly line. The plants could be so much cheaper than they have been.