Reliable Electricity Not Part of the Plan

The amount of storage will matter.

by David Wojick

I recently published a report on how Virginia’s big electric power utility, Dominion Energy Virginia, deliberately ignores the fact that the state’s zero emission law does not work. Utilities are doing this around the country. They will make a fortune building useless wind and solar generation before they finally admit it does not work and have to revive the abolished “power generated when needed.”

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.

“Reliability means designing for the likely worst case. With conventional generation this means supplying peak need, also called peak demand. When counting on solar or wind there is also the critical issue of minimum supply backed up by storage. The reliability analysis reported here looks at minimum supply with battery storage under VCEA, in two separate steps.

Step one is a simple reliability analysis for solar power. In this first step the storage requirements for reliable solar energy around the clock are derived for the period of five days of dark cloudy weather. That Virginia will see five dark days from time to time is certain.

The second step applies the step one results to Dominion’s compliance plan for VCEA. This plan is called Plan C in Dominion’s recent Integrated Resource Plan. The primary focus is on Plan C through 2036, because Dominion gives year by year generation startups and retirements for this period.

The primary step one finding is that to reliably produce just 1,000 MW of solar power, around the clock for five dark days, requires at least 6,000 MW of solar generating capacity and at least 120,000 MWh of storage capacity. Based on EIA’s standard cost estimates this works out to around $60 billion per 1,000 MW of reliable solar power. A more refined analysis will find much larger numbers, some of which are discussed.

In step two we find that Plan C includes just a tiny fraction, less than 6%, of the storage capacity required to make their solar generation reliable. Thus the proposed solar generation is completely unreliable. Moreover, our estimated cost for reliable storage is around $65 billion, just through 2036. This is more than Dominion’s cost estimate for the entire Plan C. Adequate storage for all of VCEA could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is important to keep in mind that wind generation cannot be relied upon to help when it comes to minimum solar power supply events. This is because there may be no wind generation during an extended dark cloudy period. In fact wind power has its own storage needs, which are on top of the solar power case analyzed here.

Dominion says they are doing a lot of reliability analysis. Clearly that analysis has yet to find its way into their Integrated Resource Plans. The present Plan is disastrously unreliable.

The IRP does specifically say that importing electricity from other power producers is not a viable way to make intermittent solar power reliable. The reason is that the other utilities will also be needing energy due to their reliance on solar. The IRP gives the example of “extended cloudy winter periods” so Dominion appears to be well aware of this crucial design issue.

Clearly what is needed at this point is an Integrated Resource Plan by Dominion that properly considers the storage required to make the VCEA’s solar and wind mandates reliable. The numbers will be very large.”

The full report is here.

This pattern of deception is now national. Many states and electric power utilities have promised zero emissions or such like. None to my knowledge has presented a true engineering analysis of this outlandish promise. Dominion is just an example.

Everyone is just sliding toward impossibility, because there is big money and political power to be made before they hit the wall. The utility engineers know perfectly well that wind and solar cannot work, but they are silenced by the powers that be, both corporate and political.

I hate to hope for blackouts, but I must hope for truth, however it comes.

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

29 responses to “Reliable Electricity Not Part of the Plan”

  1. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/vcea-added-costs-exceed-2000-per-household/

    So two weeks ago I shared that from the Center for the American Experiment. It also critiqued the Dominion IRP for under estimating the needed storage to back up wind and solar, but I think based its planning on having two-day outages of solar, while Wojick was looking at how to deal with regular five days of low to no output due to clouds. The numbers are highly debatable, and a game for engineers. I think the point that the risk and cost is being underestimated is valid.

    But as long as the SCC is told “thou shalt” on these projects, the reliability issues may come.

    1. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Just to summarize: In round numbers, Dominion’s VCEA plan retires all 13,000 MW of their fossil generating capacity. This leaves just 3,200 MW of nuclear power available on nights when there is no solar and wind power. But peak need is around 16,000 MW, leaving an enormous supply shortfall. In fact never mind peak need, as the typical no wind night will require way over the available 3,200 MW of reliable power. One night is all it takes to blackout.

      There are only two ways to meet these supply shortfalls. One is to buy power from other utilities, but Dominion correctly says that they will be in the same needy boat. The other way is to have large amounts of storage, but Dominion’s VCEA plan does not include that. Throw in a few cloudy days and it gets much worse, requiring millions of MWh of storage, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, if it is even feasible.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Bath County pumped storage can add 1800 MW, but that won’t last long in an extended shortfall period.

        1. David Wojick Avatar
          David Wojick

          Especially if you are 10,000 MW short. Say a windless night with 13,000 MW of need (I prefer the term “need” to the conventional “demand”) and just 3,200 MW of nuke to supply it. Mind you the plan does include some storage, just not nearly enough to get through a night, much less a period of dark cloudy days. That is my sole, simple point.
          point.

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/vcea-added-costs-exceed-2000-per-household/

    So two weeks ago I shared that from the Center for the American Experiment. It also critiqued the Dominion IRP for under estimating the needed storage to back up wind and solar, but I think based its planning on having two-day outages of solar, while Wojick was looking at how to deal with regular five days of low to no output due to clouds. The numbers are highly debatable, and a game for engineers. I think the point that the risk and cost is being underestimated is valid.

    But as long as the SCC is told “thou shalt” on these projects, the reliability issues may come.

  3. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    The professional politicians don’t care. They will be living behind walls with their own energy source while the general population will be left with their version of Detroit.
    The funny thing is that the left is advancing the greater separation of the haves and the have nots.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      The Dems realize that, so they want free elec power to lower incomes. Also in Virginia we give humongous price discount to business use of power. Also we do not want to chase the wealthy away from Virginia. That leaves the middle class, and elected officials assure me that is “where the money is” and the sky is the limit from that source. We need to be willing to pay for acceptable quality of life, and that is who has to pay. Simples.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      The Dems realize that, so they want free elec power to lower incomes. Also in Virginia we give humongous price discount to business use of power. Also we do not want to chase the wealthy away from Virginia. That leaves the middle class, and elected officials assure me that is “where the money is” and the sky is the limit from that source. We need to be willing to pay for acceptable quality of life, and that is who has to pay. Simples.

  4. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    This was a great discussion. I can’t get my arms around solar energy. This makes sense. Thanks for sharing.

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Got a broken link message…

  5. Seems like two distinct issues, first, zero emissions generation and second, storage to buffer variations in supply and demand.

    Are there mechanical alternatives to battery storage? For example, Dominion’s pumped storage in Bath County. I recall seeing articles on rotating storage in flywheels, guess those have not gone anywhere. How about generation through low head hydro? The old VEPCO power plant on the James in Richmond is an example. Dominion has done well with nuclear, and there are new generations of nuclear reactors that eliminate many of the risks of older generations. Or perhaps accept some emissions from reserve/peak generators.

    Anyway, it seems there are several ways to get to reliable low/no emission generation besides solar, wind and battery. Why limit the options?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” why limit options”?

      exactly!

      wind/solar are cheap fuels that can and should be used when they are “available”.

      pump-storage is an option but the costs of buying that much land for a lake big enough is problematical but if
      it can be done, why not?

      Same with small modular nuclear reactors. If they are actually available and are as cheap as wind/solar – do it!
      Good luck with the NIMBYs though.

      But don’t refuse to use wind/solar over ideology and ignorance. geeze.

      Virginia has millions of acres of land that lies fallow, no longer viable for farming and the people that own that lands have to pay taxes on it Let them turn that land productive and be able to pay their taxes!

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Dominion’s Plan limits the options. All I want is an honest plan.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          How so? They still plan on using nukes and gas for electric generation, right? They just want to increase other fuel choices like wind/solar especially if they offer the option of lower cost electricity. When one says Dominion is limiting options, maybe explain how and if someone is saying that all utilities are doing it , it starts to sound like an industry approach. When one says that the industry approach is wrong and nefarious, it starts to sound like a conspiracy theory – like we can’t trust the electric utilities anymore. right?

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            You really do not understand! The Virginia law effectively bans the use of any fossil generation. I am addressing Dominion’s official plan for doing that, which is very specific, as are my points.

            As for the other utilities, it is not a conspiracy because they are not working together (that I know of). They are just all telling the same lies in order to make huge amounts of money.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            No, I DO understand…. I’m just not buying your viewpoint at all:

            we’re burning gas right now and will continue to burn gas , right? That’s not exactly “banning” it.

            when you suggest they’re all telling lies and the lies are all the same? and it’s all about making money and not caring about reliability? yes… you’re impugning both govt and most all electric utilities… right?

            You still haven’t answered why Dominion has sold it’s gas assets. If they were playing games
            with renewables for profit but knew they’d need gas also, then what explains them forcing
            themselves into a dead end on reliability?

          3. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            The plan includes a schedule for shutting down all of Dominion’s gas and coal fired generation, beginning next year. So no we will not continue to burn gas. I say this clearly in my article. Since you keep saying we will continue to burn gas you clearly do not understand the issue.

            I suspect most utilities are playing this game, as I have seen a bunch, but I do not have an inventory. It looks to have started with Xcel which operates in 8 states. They jumped on wind, building billions of dollars worth as their states requested. Since their profit is based in part on asset spending it went up fast, as did their dividend. Their stock price increased 50% in a few years, which is unheard of for public utilities. Other utilities noticed and now they too are on the “all wind and solar” bandwagon, a big point of which is ignoring the ultimate unreliability of the stated goal. It is called rebuilding your asset base. I am blowing the whistle.

            I have no idea how well the government power engineers that oversee the utilities know this. In Virginia that is the SCC. But as with the utilities the engineers answer to bosses with other causes. One of the 3 SCC commissioners actually wrote the VCEA.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nope. They will START shutting down plants – if they can do it without harming reliability. We WILL continue to burn gas for some time but gradually ramp it down – again – if it does not endanger reliability. You need to look at the actual law. It’s got bail-out provisions based on reliability AND that law CAN be changed also and will if we see reliability issues.

            We’re NOT going to shut down gas plants if the result is houses going dark. It’s a fairy tale cooked up
            by folks playing boogeyman. Go read the law.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s a “plan” based on a “goal”. It’s NOT a mandatory do or die thing.

            This whole narrative IMHO is cooked up by the folks who are opposed to building more wind/solar mostly on ideological reasons.

            They emphasize that wind/solar are not available 24/7 AND a false narrative that we are being forced to shut down gas plants no matter what terrible things happen grid reliability.

            What I’ve not seen yet are analyses with regard to what happens if natural gas doubling of tripling in price.

            Would that change some minds of those currently opposed to cheaper wind/solar?

            We want to, over time, over decades, use less and less gas and more and more wind/solar/conservation/safer nukes/storage/etc.

            The timetable is not etched in stone never to be changed.

            So what’s the net result of the opponent’s message anyhow?

            What are they in favor of?

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          I would argue that it’s the folks who oppose wind/solar who want to limit options. No?

  6. tmtfairfax Avatar

    Free energy to the poor will screw the people just above qualifying for being poor enough for free energy.

    The U.S. power distribution system is simply not capable of powering an all-electric U.S.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      That’s why you taper.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Breaking news: President Biden appoints Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, to take down Russia’s power grid in retaliation for Ukraine invasion.

    1. He certainly took down Texas’s last year. OTOH, the Russians have a little more experience with operating in cold weather than the Texas weenies do, and cold was Abbott’s ace in the hole.

  8. beachguy Avatar
    beachguy

    I believe the reliability problem is being sidestepped as long as possible. I also suspect that a lot if the adamant environmentalists are willing to accept brown outs and disrupted service and, in turn, will expect/insist that the general public respond likewise. I hope I am wrong, but I haven’t read anything regarding pushback in places like California. Finally, are theare any advocacy groups to challenge these irresponsible power plan?

  9. […] previous article published by Bacon’s Rebellion and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow challenged the […]

  10. […] it also utility owned.  Attentive readers who have seen reports here on Bacon’s Rebellion of how unrealistically tiny that is as reliable backup for 857 megawatts of balky solar generation, please do not scare the cat […]

Leave a Reply