Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

[wtmusic]

107. Kind of hard to evaluate 28 billion different combinations, isn't it?

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

This paper created a stir when it was released because it had the appearance of presenting a scenario which could be realized. It can't. It's a house of cards, built on top of other similar houses, and the reason can be summed up as follows:

"If 1 was 2, and 2 was 3, and 3 was 4, then then 1 + 2 + 3 = 9."

Some of the many faulty assumptions of the article:

Several studies (reviewed below) have shown that the solar resource, and the wind resource, are each alone sufficient to power all humankind's energy needs.

A true, but specious and useless observation - similar to saying "the output of Niagara Falls would be enough to water crops in all of Africa".

The operating principle of fossil generation is “burn when needed”, a principle simple enough that it could be followed without computers, digital high-speed communications, or weather forecasting—precisely the conditions when today's electric system was created, early in the 20th century.

This statement reveals the authors' complete ignorance about the complex computer-balancing load requirements required for independent system operators on today's grid.

But, the real grid management problem is not to simulate a single baseload plant by creating constant output; rather, the problem is to meet fluctuating load reliably with fluctuating generation, for an entire grid.

Grid penetration of more than 10% renewables is proving to be a nightmare for maintaining system reliability, and it's estimated that infrastructure improvements will cost Germany €2 trillion to handle it. Again, the authors are unfamiliar with actual operating conditions and are working from entirely hypothetical assumptions.

For scenarios in which backup is used rarely and at moderate fractions of load, load curtailment is probably more sensible than fossil generation.

Load curtailment? That means shutting down power, or rolling blackouts, to manage shortages in generation.

These papers show up occasionally and are greeted with enthusiastic ahs and oohs but like most assessments of renewables they're filled with more optimism than facts. As a false hope they're not only disingenuous but dangerous, because they divert resources from avenues which show much more promise in dealing with climate change.