{"id":399,"date":"2012-06-18T17:47:27","date_gmt":"2012-06-18T22:47:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/?p=399"},"modified":"2012-06-18T17:47:27","modified_gmt":"2012-06-18T22:47:27","slug":"renewable-electricity-futures-study-nrel-report-critical-assessment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/2012\/06\/18\/renewable-electricity-futures-study-nrel-report-critical-assessment\/","title":{"rendered":"Renewable Electricity Futures Study NREL Report Critical Assessment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Renewable Electricity Futures report study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was just released<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 As with many reports done by numerous participants, there are several areas of concerns which I have identified below.\u00a0 I will admit, it is much easier to be critical of a report after the fact versus while you are working on it.\u00a0 However being accepting of critical assessments, which NREL based on my experience has always been willing to do, will improve the future reports. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0On the positive side NREL did a great job in directionally highlighting the concerns to moving to higher renewable electricity future.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As I pointed out in my <\/span>previous blog<\/span><\/a>, the levelized approach is not appropriate for the electricity market.\u00a0 NREL noted this as a concern and therefore addressed it by using GridView and dispatching hourly.\u00a0 However, they only went part way to truly analyze the situation of large amounts of renewables.\u00a0\u00a0 They did note in their own report that the report lacked a reliability component.\u00a0\u00a0 However leaving out the hourly and reliability analysis is similar to leaving out the concerns for refill stations in an analysis to convert to hydrogen and\/or natural gas vehicles.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

My concerns for the report is the extent of work that was done while leaving out some very important analysis.\u00a0 They noted they did 12 scenarios.\u00a0\u00a0 The key for this type of study is the information going into the models.\u00a0 Given most of the information should have been available from laboratories; this keeps the study cost down.\u00a0 Based on that, my personal budget for the modeling portion for this type of project is around $120-150K \u2013 see below for more details.\u00a0 In addition, I would have not left out a very critical piece of the study.\u00a0 Reliability is the key to sustained large penetration of renewables.\u00a0\u00a0 They noted in the study they could not do this in multiple parts of the report. \u00a0\u00a0In addition they noted a full reliability assessment cannot be done. \u00a0\u00a0I agree with this statement, but that does not preclude running some various sensitivities to understand the reliability issues. \u00a0\u00a0I will show below one easy add-on that would have indicated some level of reliability.\u00a0\u00a0 One can model directionally, the reliability balance needed for large renewables without doing a full blown transmission study.\u00a0 I understand their following statement:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSystem Adequacy: To understand overall system adequacy fully, detailed simulations would be required to measure loss of load probability with the correct probability density functions of various power system variables. Many scenarios would need to be analyzed to understand whether the overall electric system has adequate system capacity to meet load under a variety of operating conditions. With conventional generation units, this type of study typically involves running reliability models using the forced outage rate and mean time to repair of the full suite of conventional units, while also considering possible changes in electricity demand, to estimate the loss of load probability. With high amounts of variable generation, analyses of this type become somewhat more difficult due to the unique behavior of variable generation. As discussed elsewhere, ReEDS addressed system adequacy largely on a statistical basis, whereas GridView was used to analyze a subset of the scenarios to determine whether loss of load would be expected in 2050. Further analysis of system adequacy would require an assessment of a broader array of scenarios, using GridView or alternative tools, as well as more detailed assessment of system voltage and frequency.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

However the study is about renewables penetration not the existing reliability of the grid.\u00a0 The addition of renewable generation produces a dynamic similar to loss of load probability via the loss of generation as weather changes.\u00a0 Having an understanding of the incremental needs of reliability with more renewable is the key.\u00a0 Modeling a level of reliability is not that hard once you have hourly dispatching model.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The critical scenario they left out and perhaps the big fault of the study is the level of generation capacity needed to balance the system to produce a level of reliability of a loss of load probability level.\u00a0\u00a0 With significant renewable, particularly wind and solar, one could mathematically derive an acceptable level of the expected loss of generation level given the sporadic weather patterns.\u00a0\u00a0 This expected loss of generation should have been focused on the peak time period.\u00a0 Running the analysis on average weather expectations is not an appropriate level of capacity planning.\u00a0\u00a0 I am sure there is a reasonable level of risk expectations to see limited and\/or sporadic wind and solar performance during peak time periods.\u00a0\u00a0 Figure ES-6 should have been supplemented with this \u201cweather risk case\u201d (perhaps only few days of work).\u00a0\u00a0 What I find immediately alarming in the report is the limited amount of capacity build of gas units as more renewables penetrate the market \u2013 Figure ES-3.\u00a0\u00a0 In my mind, I would expect a sustain if not larger capacity buildup of gas units as the larger penetration of renewables.\u00a0\u00a0 However, they have it declining.\u00a0 I believe the generation piece can grow very large for renewable, but I suspect the capacity chart not to look the same.\u00a0\u00a0 The likely error in the study is largely because the choice of fossil fuel technology was limiting.\u00a0\u00a0 Looking at the <\/span>Black & Veatch study<\/span><\/a> used for technology selection for the study, I am shocked to see very limited flexible power selection.\u00a0\u00a0 I know for a fact B&V should have known and included reciprocating engines to aero-derivatives given the study was about significant renewable generation.\u00a0\u00a0 As the study noted, flexible generation is a requirement including requiring conventional plants to be flexible.\u00a0\u00a0 This requirement would have driven technology improvements and\/or adoption of the un-traditional manufacturers.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The current\u00a0selection choices biases the study\u00a0to traditional technology manufactures (GE & Siemens).\u00a0\u00a0 Balancing the system can be done by generation not just transmission, storage, and curtailments.\u00a0 However one cannot see this without offering the choice in the model.\u00a0 Depending on large transmission builds where a <\/span>90 mile line takes 13 years<\/span><\/a> is a problem.\u00a0 Also the dependence on large compressed air energy storage (CAES) when it has yet to be deployed in either bedded salt or in porous rock formations is another problem.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

My hypothesis would be including technology such as the Wartsila reciprocating unit \u2013 which is up and running in multiple US locations \u2013 will lower the cost for renewable penetration given the technology capability to ramp and start within minutes and also its very low plant minimum capacity (4%) with still a very good heat rates (7.2-8.5 mmbtu\/MW).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Designing and running future scenarios and then deciding and understand the optimal and robust choices is my forte.\u00a0\u00a0 Working at AEP\u00a0I had to \u00a0cover 11 states and had to deal with multiple resource plans with multiple biases to different fuels.\u00a0 Our decisions at AEP can and will influence the market therefore we modeled the entire US.\u00a0\u00a0 Bi-yearly we ran 6 Scenarios for the US \u2013 at least two represented economic conditions (low and high).\u00a0 Others typically dealt with various legislations.\u00a0 The core team to model and evaluate these scenarios represented me and another colleague.\u00a0 The input team represented my entire team along with the various parts of the organization.\u00a0\u00a0 The decision to build goes beyond economics, but it is a good place to start.\u00a0 However as many modelers will tell you \u2013 you will be only as good as your input.\u00a0 Therefore more time should be dedicated to the input than the output \u2013 particularly when you are starting out.\u00a0 It is crucial to examine the conditions confronting you and plan accordingly.\u00a0 Details of your runs need to balance with precisions of your knowledge.\u00a0\u00a0 There is no point in over analyzing as much as under analyzing.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As many know, I have served on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Advisory Panel.\u00a0\u00a0 There are many very studious hard working individuals at NREL.\u00a0 They continue to improve and come up with new concepts and ideas.\u00a0 Though I was critical on this study, I do see much progress and expect further progress from them.\u00a0 Technically, I am sure\u00a0the US\u00a0can operate at 80% level of renewable generation.\u00a0 The question really is the cost and the benefits of obtaining that level.\u00a0 There are a lot more questions I can posed for the report, but I will have to leave it for another day and time.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

At All Energy Consulting we can help you run and model your resource options\/plans.\u00a0 We can either offer a third-party assessment or help design and build you a process plan for which you can manage yourself.\u00a0 To run a resource plan, the core offering would be a base forecast along with two scenarios.\u00a0\u00a0 This would run would be about $60K.\u00a0\u00a0 For additional scenarios and risk simulations we are talking about $10K\/per design.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I hope all the fathers of the world had a great day with their family.\u00a0 I did!\u00a0 In fact, I got to spend some time with ALL my kids (5) \u2013 even my two teenagers.\u00a0 And I had time to read the report, write, ride 20 miles on my bike, go boating with the kids, wakeboard, run 50 risk simulations of the Eastern Interconnect for one of my clients, and have a picnic with the family and friends.\u00a0 Life can be short so make it worth it!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Your Energy Consultant,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

David K. Bellman<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

614-356-0484<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Renewable Electricity Futures report study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was just released.\u00a0 As with many reports done by numerous participants, there are several areas of concerns which I have identified below.\u00a0 I will admit, it is much easier to be critical of a report after the fact versus while you are working […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":34,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,6,17],"tags":[113,14,60,152,20,145,153,154],"class_list":["post-399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-market-insights","category-power","category-renewables","tag-gas","tag-natural-gas-2","tag-nrel","tag-renewable-electricity-future","tag-renewables-2","tag-resource-planning","tag-storage","tag-transmission"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=399"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":409,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399\/revisions\/409"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/34"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}