Impractical Solar Power, Illustrated With the Math

by David WojickThis was first published at cfact.org and is reproduced with Wojick’s permission.

Many states and the utilities they regulate are talking about replacing their coal and gas fired generators with solar and wind power. For example, I recently wrote about how the crazy-named Virginia Clean Economy Act already has almost 800 square miles of solar slabs in the developmental lineup.

Given the high intermittency of wind and solar, the idea of running on solar and wind turns out to be an extremely costly prospect. It is all about reliability. Electricity must be there when we need it. Below I present some simple calculations that show just how bad this idea really is.

Reliability analysis of large scale solar and wind power generation can be very complex. Both depend on the weather, which can vary dramatically and quickly. Both can depend heavily on other available power sources, if available. They can also depend on each other under some conditions.

Here we will simply analyze certain basic features of power generation, as a way to scale the issues. For a start we will simply consider what a standalone 1,000 MW solar system with battery storage requires for reliability.

The 1,000 MW is power reliably delivered to the grid around the clock. Because of intermittency, considerably more than 1,000 MW of generating capacity will be required. A lot of battery storage will also be required. Thus the capital cost will be a lot more than simply the cost of 1,000 MW of generating capacity. We will discuss these additional costs. Note that adding wind power does not reduce these very large costs.

Given this simple 1,000 MW analysis, it will be relatively easy then to consider other possible systems of different size and with different features.

Reliability of 1,000 MW of round-the-clock solar generation

Solar is relatively simple because of the predictable daily cycle of night and day. Generating times do differ depending on the time of year. They also vary depending on how moveable the panels are, that is to what degree they can track the sun’s daily movement across the sky.

The full sun case

For simplicity let us first assume eight hours of full sun and full power every day. Clearly we need 16 hours of storage every night. That is 16,000 MWh of battery storage. We also need another 2,000 MW of generating capacity to charge the batteries every day.

So, the full sun requirements are 3,000 MW of solar generating capacity and 16,000 MWh of storage capacity, in order to reliably generate 1,000 MW around the clock.

The dark cloudy days case

Solar generating capacity can be drastically reduced on dark, cloudy days. When very cloudy the output can be reduced to just 10% of nameplate capacity. Dark cloudiness can last for days, thus requiring more battery backup along with the generating capacity to charge these dark days batteries.

How many successive days of dark cloudiness to design for is a complex question of local and regional meteorology. Here we simply use five days, but it easily could be more. Five dark days certainly happen from time to time in most states. In Virginia’s case it can happen over the whole Mid-Atlantic region, so no one has significant solar power. This rules out buying solar power from the neighbors.

Reliability requires designing for these relatively extreme events. With conventional generation you design for maximum need for power but with wind and solar you also have to design for minimum supply. That minimum case is what I am looking at here.

The required battery capacity is simple. Five days at 24 hours a day is 120 hours. To supply a steady 1,000 MW that is a whopping 120,000 MWh of storage. We already have the overnight storage capacity for 16 hours, so we now need an additional 104 hours, which means 104,000 MWh of additional storage.

However, the required additional generating capacity to charge these dark days batteries is far from simple. It all depends on how long we have to do the charging. The more time we have, the smaller the required generating capacity.

It is vital to get the dark-days batteries charged before the next dark days arrive, which in some cases might be very soon. This too is a matter of meteorology. To be conservative we here first assume that we have two bright sunny days to do the job.

Two days gives us 16 hours of charging time for the needed 120,000 MWh, which requires a large 7,500 MW of generating capacity. We already have 3,000 MW of generating capacity but that is in use providing round the clock sunny day power. It is not available to help recharge the dark days batteries. Turns out we need a whopping 10,500 MW of solar generating capacity.

This 10,500 MW is a lot considering we only want to reliably generate 1,000 MW around the clock. Moreover, some of this additional generating capacity will seldom be used. But reliability is like that due to the great variability of weather. In conventional fossil fueled generation the extreme event that drives design is peak need (also called peak demand). Special generators called “peakers” are used for this case. In the solar case the special equipment is batteries or other forms of storage.

Note that if we have 5 days to recharge the dark days batteries then the amount of required generation is a lot less. Five days gives us 40 hours to charge the 120,000 MWh so one only needs 3,000 MW of additional generating capacity, added to the 3,000 MW we need to produce daily power on sunny days.

At this point we need 120,000 MWh of battery storage and from 6,000 to 10,500 MW of generating capacity, in order to reliably supply 1,000 MW of round-the- clock power.

These large numbers occur because following a period of dark cloudy days we are doing three things simultaneously during the daylight generating hours. We are (1) generating 1,000 MW of immediately used electricity, while recharging both the (2) nighttime batteries and the (3) dark days batteries.

Note too that the numbers should actually be bigger. Batteries are not charged 100% and then drained to zero. The standard practice is to operate between 80% and 20%. In that case the available storage is just 60% of the nameplate capacity. This turns the dark days 120,000 MWh into a requirement for 200,000 MWh.

The cost of the dark days case

A standard figure from EIA for the cost of grid scale battery arrays is $250 per kWh, which gives $250,000 per MWh. At this cost the required 200,000 MWh of storage for around the clock 1,000 MW is $50 billion.

A standard EIA figure for PV solar capacity is $1,300 per kW or $1,300,000 per MW. This makes the 6,000 to 10,500 MW cost $7.8 to 13.7 billion.

This makes $60 billion for just 1,000 MW a good rough estimate for standalone solar capacity to meet the five dark cloudy days case. (As explained below, adding wind power does not reduce this number because the five dark days may also see zero wind output.)

The partly cloudy case

The partly cloudy days case is far more complex. Much of the time this loss of solar generation might be handled with the dark days’ batteries. But this may not be the case if the dark days event is either preceded or followed by partly cloudy days, especially if these are relatively dark. Note that partly cloudy here includes complete cloudiness where the cloud cover is light enough to still enable significantly more than the 10% generation under the dark days case.

Given these complexities the partly cloudy case is beyond the scope of this simple analysis. It is very likely that this case will require additional battery storage and generating capacity. How much is hard to say.

Note too that several costly features are not included. One example is transmission to get solar power from point of origin to load centers, which may be distant. Another is a reserve generating capacity or margin of safety, which might be as high as 20%. One cannot assume everything will work perfectly when the system is stressed. This is especially true if the dark days include widespread heavy snowfall, which can greatly delay recharging.

Reliability of round-the-clock wind generation to back up solar

Wind generation does not share the predictable daily cycle that solar enjoys so it is more complex from the beginning. With solar we can count on relatively good ongoing generation on most days. Wind power can drop to nothing frequently during a day, as well as delivering nothing for several days in a row and very little for long periods of time in many locations.

It is not a matter of no wind, just low wind. Wind generators require sustained winds of considerable velocity in order begin to generate substantial amounts of power. In many parts of the country stagnant, multi-day high pressure systems cause both low wind and a heavy need for electricity.

It is very important to note that because of this great variability wind power cannot be used to reduce the massive requirements of the dark days solar case. This is because it is always possible that there will be no wind power during the dark days, as well as during the recharge time after this extreme event. A standalone solar and wind system has to be designed to handle this extreme, but common, possibility.

Solar and wind power cannot replace coal and gas at a reasonable cost. Intermittency makes solar and wind power impossibly expensive. This is likely true in all states and certainly in Virginia.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staffs of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab. 


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

45 responses to “Impractical Solar Power, Illustrated With the Math”

  1. The key insight here is that it is not sufficient to plan for “normal” weather. We have to play for worst-case scenarios of prolonged cloudiness. Wojick clearly explains how, if battery storage is the only backup, a huge multiplier effect would make the costs prohibitive. A failure to plan properly could leave the entire state — not just scattered subdivisions and houses — devoid of electricity for days at a time.

  2. John Harvie Avatar
    John Harvie

    An issue to be mindful of is solar panel and battery degradation rates.

    Solar panels may degrade as much as 2% per year initially and up to 1% per year later during their lifetimes. So eventually panels may have to be changed out or added just to keep up to near their initial generation capacity.

    Batteries are getting better, but I can’t imagine that there will not always be some diminution of their capacity over time no matter how good a job Mr. Musk’s enterprise does.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I agree- on both. Similar loss of efficiency occurs in gas plants and nukes… or for that matter even hydro – as the pool silts in. Nuke fuel regularly expends itself and has to be replaced, and the expended fuel stored – forever. So much for all the talk about what to do with dead solar and wind parts!

      all things degrade over time…. even US! 😉

    2. Tim Dolan Avatar

      I have had solar panels for over 12 years now, the degradation is at about 10% at this point and slowing and data from even older panels (some installed in the 1970’s show closer to a less than 0.5% annual degradation to power output over a 40 year period.

      Environmental factors causing loss of panels is more of a problem over that length of time. For home owners at what level do you NEED to replace the panels. I would argue and am expecting I will need to at the 40-50 year mark when they get to around 75% of original power output. It will also be about the time I need to replace the roof shingles, because the panels themselves will extent the life of the architectural shingles well beyond their 25 year expectancy.

      If homes have the solar along with battery backup for themselves, this significantly reduces the cost of solar and batteries for utilities to provide energy assurance.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The illustration is illuminating, but I admit it overstates the proposed reliance on solar. Yet see how much battery backup you really need? Scary.

    Dominion does expect to maintain its nuclear reactors, and frankly is going to maintain its natural gas baseload, too (as much as it galls the Zet Zero maniacs). When the weather gods are smiling, wind and solar peak at complementary times. Sometimes. But the reality is what the VCEA currently contemplates will be expensive AND unreliable and will scare away economic investment in the Commonwealth. There is time to change course.

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      In their new IRP, Dominion’s Plan C to comply with VCEA, does not maintain any gas generation. See illegible figure 7.1.3. All existing fossil is gone. They (hope to) keep their nukes and add about 1200 MW of new nuke, but this is less than half of peak demand. The rest is solar, wind and a trivial amount of batteries, not nearly enough for reliability. Plan C simply does not work.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Doms IRP never made sense before either , it’s just a piece of paper to satisfy the bean counters.

        PJM is the one to listen to. What do they say?

        Energy has never been an all or nothing thing – ever, except in the minds of the naysayers , the same ones today, were predicting reliability issues if we closed the coal plants… right?

        so what happened when they closed the coal plants? Did we lose reliability? Nope.

        We’re not going to close gas plants if it results in reliability issues. It’s fear porn from the naysayers. The law itself , as written, says exactly that – a big IF….

        why must we promote fear porn on this?

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          PJM is ignoring the issue. Even worse they are ignoring the electrification push.their peak demand projection increases just 1% a year. New data centers alone will exceed that, much less EVs and switching gas heat to juice.

          Legitimate concern is not porn. Nonsense.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Notwithstanding, the law as currently codified does allow flexibility in response to reliability concerns. Beyond that, it’s a law that can be changed if needed, so yes – “fear porn” when it’s portrayed as something that is mandated and cannot be changed no matter what – even when disaster looms.

            No such thing.

            It’s okay to have the debate and discussion but it needs to be based on facts and realities not boogeymen which Conservatives seem to prefer for a lot of their issues these days.

        2. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          You are half right. We will close coal and gas plants until the reliability problems become acute, but no longer than that. This will take a while since (1) we are still burning almost 500 million tons of coal a year, down from a billion, and (2) we built 200,000 MW of gas plants around 2001 and are building more today.

    2. dave schutz Avatar
      dave schutz

      Hey! I was told there would be no math! Here in Arlington, we have virtue to signal!

    3. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      I have a new analysis of Dominion’s IRP. There is no reliability.
      https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/21/vcea-makes-virginias-electric-grid-dangerously-unreliable/

  4. Math’s a bitch

  5. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Who’s on first? Third base.
    This is so hilarious. Not in a good way.
    Please build some nuclear. Please.

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Dominion’sVCEA compliance plan calls for about 1,600 MW of new nukes. But that pales compared to the 14,000 MW of solar and 5,000 MW of wind, both of which will often produce no power at the same time. It just does not work, not even close. The interesting question is how we will find that out?

      1. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        Dr. Wojick, where have you detemined the chances that wind and solar (combined with storage) will “often produce no power at the same time”? I’m curious to see some numbers

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          In Virginia we get Bermuda high heat waves with peak demand and no wind power for a week at a time. Every day in that week has a night with no solar.

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            I have a new analysis of Dominion’s IRP. There is no reliability.
            https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/21/vcea-makes-virginias-electric-grid-dangerously-unreliable/

          2. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            Your initial premise in the analysis is incorrect. The VCEA (of which I am no fan, either) does not mandate “all solar and wind power,” it mandates carbon free generation which includes nuclear and hydro.

          3. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            Perhaps, but the wind doesn’t stop over the open ocean does it?

  6. If we want to be able to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels for our electrical energy needs, I think we need to concentrate on improvements in the following areas: :

    1) Solar and wind power generation methods.
    2) Nuclear power generation.
    2) Pumped hydroelectric energy storage.
    4) Battery technology.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Or, we don’t eliminate them, just continue to use less. Duh. If you mention batteries, you clearly didn’t read what Wojick wrote….

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Dr. Wojick’s writing is correct, based upon current battery tech. That’s why Wayne suggested improvements in battery tech. Which is why you have rich individuals detonating their Tesla’s when the battery pack dies.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yeah, what the Hell. We’ll all be dead by 2050 anyway. Let the millennials worry about it.

      3. I think you may have misunderstood my comment.

        I was not advocating the elimination of fossil fuels, and I was making no claims regarding the current viability of batteries. I was simply listing the areas where I think we need to concentrate our research and development efforts in order to one day be able to eliminate them (as a means for generating electricity).

        I am by no means in favor of eliminating fossil fuels until we have sufficient levels of reliable and proven alternate sources of electricity to replace it.

        I suppose I should have added the word “ever” in front of “…want to be able to completely replace…”

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Or, we don’t eliminate them, just continue to use less. Duh. If you mention batteries, you clearly didn’t read what Wojick wrote….

  7. LarrytheG Avatar

    It’s a straw man on steroids! wind/solar will probably NEVER be a “primary” fuel except in the minds of the those who are blinded by ideology.

    Just consider if we could only use wind/solar 1/2 of the time and the other 1/2 had to be gas. That’s 1/2 the gas we need to burn and that may well become an economic issue if the cost of gas increases – which is forecast and actually a problem in some places already.

    Some day, we’ll see a breakthrough in battery technology but it’s not there yet – but again – the economics of the battery are also tied to the cost of gas. If gas skyrockets, improved technology batteries may well be cheaper.

    So the folks on the left who think we can run 100% wind/solar/battery are in LA LA LAND, but so are the folks who think we can burn gas – cheaply.

    But why make gas the enemy of wind/solar in the first place – you combine them and end up with a better solution than just one alone. Don’t be a luddite!

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Wind/solar is the law in Virginia.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    On a pure economics basis, if you could burn a cheaper fuel when that fuel was available, why would you not? If wind/solar cost less than gas, why would you not use them? This all or nothing proposition is silly.

    Hydro is cheap comparatively also – but it’s not always available – like when the pool is drawn down. But you don’t call it “unreliable” and argue against it so why do that with other fuels?

    Normally conservatives are pretty good at economics but when it comes to this issue they have lost their minds over partisan knee-jerk stuff.

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      That is like saying you are better off with two cars where one gets great mileage while the other does the big jobs. There is the pesky cost of two cars. That is economics.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Not sure I understand. I’m said to be “slow”, so you may need to explain!

        But the argument is to have a diversified fuel supply – and not be too reliant on any one fuel.

        Not really like having two cars ….

        We’ve always strived for diversified fuel supplies for electricity – it’s a standard.

        Right now, we even still have coal plants on standby – in places where we need backup.

        There is nothing wrong with that IMHO. Ther is nothing wrong with having standby gas plants if one of the Nukes goes down. AND, there is nothing wrong with using solar/wind and having backup for them especially if it allows us to burn cheaper fuel when we can, when it is available, but then fall back to more expensive fuels when not.

        This is really common sense.

        Why we’d be opposed to this is beyond me.

        Certainly, neither Dominion nor APCO are opposed to it and they support it.

        And again, nothing prevents us from delaying net zero if it actually does endanger reliability. Again, common sense.

        Why do we promote FUD? fear, uncertainty and dread on something that does not merit it?

  9. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is a really a good article. It taught me some things and clarified other aspects of the issue. I don’t know enough about this topic to evaluate the assumptions of the author, although they seem reasonable.

    Some conclusions and fairly random thoughts:

    1. As Larry says, it is obvious that, because of intermittency, we cannot yet rely on solar and wind for 100 percent of our electricity needs. We will need to continue to use natural gas, with solar and wind power gradually assuming a greater share of the generation.

    2. As Mr. Wojik reminds us, Virginia law requires phasing out the use of fossil fuels with no reliance on them by 2050. Formally and legally, the policy of the Commonwealth is that we will reach full reliance on solar/wind/nuclear by 2050. But, that deadline is not written in stone. In essence, it is a goal. In there is not a goal clearly stated as an official policy of the Commonwealth, the effort and expense necessary to reach that goal will be more difficult to justify and sustain. Obviously, if it is determined that the available technology is not sufficient to reach the goal or doing so is prohibitively expensive, the law can be amended.
    3. Has anyone else, such as the Southern Environmental Law Center, conducted a similar reliability analysis? If so, Mr. Wojik”s analysis of those studies would be most helpful.
    4. I assume that the advocates of Net Zero are betting on significant improvement in battery storage technology. This has happened before: government sets a goal that is beyond the current technology and private enterprise comes up with innovations to meet that goal.
    5. I am not a fan of these huge windmills. Has anyone explored the feasibility of placing large solar panel arrays offshore?

    1. “I assume that the advocates of Net Zero are betting on significant improvement in battery storage technology.”

      Correct. It is assumed that future technological advances will drive down the cost of battery storage, analogous to the way innovation has driven down the cost of microchips. It reminds me of this cartoon.

      https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2022/01/miracle.jpg

      Maybe a miracle will happen. Maybe it won’t. I wouldn’t gamble on the stability of the electric grid until the miracle does, in fact happen.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        It’s NOT Net-Zero by a certain date – period.

        It’s a goal like the goals we had to reduce air pollution over cities or clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

        We want to get to net-zero, yes, but we’re not going to sacrifice reliability.

        This is the same old anti canard that portrays these issues as binary all or nothing propositions.

        1. Your beloved Washington Post says it is a requirement.

          From the article: “The Virginia Clean Economy Act requires the state’s biggest utilities to deliver electricity from 100 percent renewable sources by 2045, sets a timeline for closing old fossil-fuel plants and mandates gains in energy efficiency.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-dominion-energy-bill/2020/03/06/4524cd20-5fc1-11ea-b29b-9db42f7803a7_story.html

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          You could not be more wrong, intentionally. Luckily, everybody who reads into the comments has had you pegged for years.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            and you. We know who you are and your positions and we know that you say things that are simply not true by shading the narrative. It seems to be a common thing now and I am not alone in calling you out, nor your habit of personal attacks by trying to minimize others.

            It reflects on you guy.

      2. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        I have a new analysis of Dominion’s IRP. There is no reliability. The batteries are trivial.
        https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/21/vcea-makes-virginias-electric-grid-dangerously-unreliable/

  10. The author never mentions pumped hydro storage, which is less than half the cost of li-ion. You could even put floating solar on top of the storage pond to save space and reduce evaporation.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/20/pumped-hydro-provides-vast-majority-of-energy-storage-for-renewables/

    He also doesn’t mention long distance transmission of power through HVDC lines, so if its cloudy where you are, its probably sunny elsewhere. Grid operators ship power around all the time.

    Finally, Saul Griffith makes an excellent case for electrification at https://www.rewiringamerica.org/

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      We are talking about hundreds of thousands of MWh so I do not see pumped storage as a viable option. As for importing power, these dark cloudy events can cover the entire Mid Atlantic, or even the Eastern US. We cannot build enough generation to serve the same huge regions in several different places, in hopes the sun shines in one of them.

      More on this: I have a new analysis of Dominion’s IRP. There is no reliability. They specifically say importing power to back up solar does not work.

      https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/21/vcea-makes-virginias-electric-grid-dangerously-unreliable/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Dominion imports power now as do the rural electric cooperatives.

        PJM’s middle name is “reliability” and compare PJM to Texas and it’s no contest.

        It’s interesting to see a view that pump-storage is “not viable” as opposed to calling it “unreliable” or “impractical’ like solar/wind is categorized, no?

        Solar/wind will not be a primary fuel for a long time but that does not render it impractical or unreliable per se.

        And yes, clouds can and do cover the entire Mid-Atlantic – but how many times a year compared to the days that are not that way?

        We keep making this an all or nothing proposition, and it’s not.

        We use wind/solar – when we can, when it is available and the more times it is available – the lower the costs for electricity overall and the lower the emissions AND it will reduce demand for gas – keep the price moderated.

        The geography where these distinctions are much more sharply focused is the 10,000 islands in the world that are inhabited and in general use diesel fuel for electricity, which less costly than gas because of the transportation costs of the fuels.

        So grid electricity on most islands costs 2-3 times what it costs in Virginia. Would we still characterize wind/solar as “impractical” or “unreliable” if it reduced costs by using it when you could instead of imported diesel?

  11. […] the VCEA in the 2030s and 40s.  As is now stands and has been previously discussed (here and here), the current proposal is far too light on expensive energy storage.  When the wind and sun are […]

  12. […] main point is one that has been made by others. The VCEA will introduce such a huge dependence on wind and solar assets that are subject to […]

  13. […] VCEA is the Virginia Clean Economy Act, which foolishly mandates zero emissions from electric power generation by 2045.  Below is the executive summary of my analysis on Dominion’s VCEA compliance plan, building on the engineering realities I outlined previously. […]

Leave a Reply