We need to stop wasting resources on wind and solar

There are lessons to be learned from the experience of countries that have tried to decarbonize their power supply, both from the success and from the failure.

This map of the world is from ElectricityMaps.com. It shows the carbon emissions intensity of electricity generation for various areas of the world. There are some areas missing, China being the largest, but it covers much of the world’s population.

I have used the twelve-month view because anything less brings in seasonal variations which wouldn’t represent a true picture.

The map’s colors indicate the level of carbon emissions from the region’s electricity generation, with dark green being the lowest level and light green being the second lowest at about 100 gCO₂/kWh. The highest level, the dark brown of Botswana is over 800 gCO₂/kWh (where China would be if it were to be included in the survey).

If you visit the website and click on each region you can see a breakdown of the sources of that region’s electricity supply.

You will notice that all the regions that have emissions below 100 gCO₂/kWh have certain features in common:

· They have copious hydro or geothermal resources (or both),

OR

· They have nuclear power.

Note: Regions such as Southern Sweden and North-East Brazil only show green on the map because they import most of their electricity from neighboring regions.

None of the regions that have invested heavily in wind and solar power have lowered their emissions below 100 gCO₂/kWh. Denmark comes closest with 104, but Denmark is a tiny piece of a much larger European grid and depends heavily on its neighbors to compensate for the intermittency if its renewables.

Regions that are investing heavily in wind and solar (Germany, UK, California) are also seeing sharp increases in electricity prices and an increasing reliance on neighboring regions to make up their power supply. California is the US state that imports the most electricity, Germany has gone from a net exporter to a net importer and the UK imported a record amount of electricity last year, 16% of its total use.

In addition, both the UK and Germany are experiencing de-industrialization and stagnant growth because it is hard to attract investors to a country that has an expensive and potentially unreliable electricity supply.

Through my former work colleagues I know of one UK project that would have created about 600 jobs in a depressed area, but the investors decided to pull out, not because of expensive electricity but because no one was even able to guarantee a supply for the project.

There is a lesson to be learned:

If you don’t have substantial hydro or geothermal resources, you will not de-carbonize your power supply without a significant base load of nuclear power.

But there is another lesson to be learned, and that lesson comes from the Canadian Province of Ontario.

Ontario is blessed with hydro resources, mostly from a major power station on the Niagara River that makes use of the massive water flow and the elevation change between two of the great lakes. That cheap power supply was instrumental in building Ontario’s industrial base after WWII. But it was limited and could not provide further growth.

In response to rising demand, Ontario built up its nuclear fleet between 1964 And 1988, before public opinion turned against nuclear power. That fleet now provides about 60% of Ontario’s electricity. Thanks to its nuclear fleet, Ontario was able to shut down its coal fired generating stations in 2014 and now has some of the cleanest power in the world.

But politicians are always eager to follow the latest trends, and with nuclear out of fashion and “renewables” gaining public support the former the Liberal government decided to jump on the renewables band wagon. Without any apparent consideration of how they would integrate into the already “clean” power supply, lucrative take or pay contracts were awarded to wind and solar farms. Those contracts obligated Ontario ratepayers to buy wind and solar power at higher than market rates. They are compelled to accept whatever power the wind turbines and solar panels can produce, irrespective of whether the power is needed at the time, and it often isn’t needed.

It has been a financial disaster for Ontario. The provinces power demand peaks on hot summer days when air conditioning loads peak. Wind, which makes up the bulk of the renewable power generation in Ontario, is usually absent on those days. Wind power generation peaks in spring when demand is at its lowest.

Forcing the nuclear plants to follow the residual demand curve provides no material benefit, nothing is saved by ramping down the nuclear power plants to accommodate wind power. Similarly, turning down the major source of hydro power only means that water flows over the falls instead of through the power plant. There is no offsetting benefit either in cost or in emissions reduction if the nuclear or hydro plants have to be turned down when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Natural gas is used for balancing supply and demand. Wind and solar can sometimes offset some of the gas use, but they cannot replace the gas, they only save the fuel cost.

The end result is that surplus power from the renewables is mostly exported at prices well below the contract prices that are paid to the wind and solar suppliers.

The whole boondoggle has been estimated to cost Ontarians a total of $53 billion over the life of the wind and solar contracts.

The lesson to be learned from Ontario’s mistake is that nuclear, wind and solar don’t belong together.

Combining the two lessons, firstly that nuclear is needed for de-carbonization and secondly that wind and solar do not fit with nuclear, the only logical conclusion is that we should stop wasting money and resources on wind and solar. The ultimate solution needs to be an integrated system that works together to minimize (not necessarily eliminate) emissions at reasonable cost. That solution needs a plan, not a mandate.

Building wind and solar is like setting off at a brisk pace on a journey and going in the wrong direction because you didn’t have a map.