{"id":703,"date":"2013-05-13T15:45:27","date_gmt":"2013-05-13T20:45:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/?p=703"},"modified":"2013-05-13T19:04:28","modified_gmt":"2013-05-14T00:04:28","slug":"study-vs-advocacy-wind-generation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/2013\/05\/13\/study-vs-advocacy-wind-generation\/","title":{"rendered":"Study vs. Advocacy – Wind Generation"},"content":{"rendered":"

I recently came across this \u201cstudy\u201d – <\/span>The Net Benefits of Increased Wind Power in PJM<\/span><\/a> – done by Synapse Energy Economics for Americans for a Clean Energy Grid.\u00a0 Based on the information on the website from their website they seem to be a very credible organization.\u00a0\u00a0 However I think the \u201cstudy\u201d shows that they are smart enough to manipulate the setup and presentation to create a document to their client\u2019s desire.\u00a0 The study became an advocacy piece and those calling it a study better review it first.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The first alarm bell from any study requiring a model, particularly the power markets, there needs to be back test of the model. \u00a0They should show the back cast results and prove the model is ready for future applications. The main mechanism to show the impact of increasing wind actually was beneficial was to start the analysis with a draconian setup and to guise the result under a delta impact of 2026.\u00a0 By pushing the analysis to 2026 they were able to state a capacity setup which does not exist and will likely not exist, thereby making a delta analysis potentially more positive.\u00a0\u00a0 Below table shows\u00a0the current PJM resource mix (http:\/\/www.pjm.com\/~\/media\/documents\/reports\/2012-rtep\/2012-rtep-book-2.ashx) vs. the proposed 2026 setup by Synapse.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Installed Capacity GW<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\nSynapse 2026<\/span><\/span><\/td>\nPJM Current 2012<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wind<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

32<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Gas<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

123<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Coal<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

18<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

73<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Nuclear<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

34<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

34<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Hydro<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

3<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Other<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

42<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Total<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n\n

252<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

181<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I will agree to the direction of the reduction of coal, but the extent is far from reality.\u00a0\u00a0 First, there are 37 GW of coal assets with scrubber installed in the last 5 years.\u00a0\u00a0 Do you think utilities spend a billion dollar not to recover their assets over a longer time period?\u00a0 In addition in the planning queue for scrubber installation I see 12GW of coal.\u00a0 I suspect not all of those will install, but compared to the 18GW Synapse is assuming to be left in 2026 because it doesn\u2019t pass the sanity check.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

By starting at the reference point at a system that is already expensive, makes it very easy to conclude wind generation is better.\u00a0\u00a0 Another advocacy maneuver was to have wind generation at such high levels 36+% compared to <\/span>NREL own assessment<\/span><\/a> for many of the PJM states in the upper 20%.\u00a0 Besides the output, I would be curious to see the wind shapes they used to and whether they are close to industry standards or biased.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I could go on and do more analysis, but I think my concerns thatI have addressed are sufficient to make the conclusion the report is more advocacy than study.\u00a0 It is ashame they went that direction.\u00a0 I believe the assessment done by NREL that wind costs are coming down is real and will have an impact for more wind.\u00a0\u00a0 I also believe solar impacts will be larger than stated in this study, but this would likely not support the initiatives set forth by the Americans for Clean Energy Grid as most of the members are wind centric.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think I would be a good advocate.\u00a0\u00a0 The numbers drive me.\u00a0 However I am open to latitudes of probabilities, but those probabilities must sit inside some reality.\u00a0\u00a0 I suspect over time people would want to deal with people who don\u2019t just color the picture\u00a0how\u00a0you want them to, but actually consult with you to make better decisions.\u00a0\u00a0 At All Energy Consulting<\/strong> we promise to offer you real consulting minus the advocacy. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Your Energy Analyst who paints it like he sees it,<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

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

614-356-0484<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is the hardest thing in the world – To think\u201d Ralph Waldo Emerson.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I recently came across this \u201cstudy\u201d – The Net Benefits of Increased Wind Power in PJM – done by Synapse Energy Economics for Americans for a Clean Energy Grid.\u00a0 Based on the information on the website from their website they seem to be a very credible organization.\u00a0\u00a0 However I think the \u201cstudy\u201d shows that they […]<\/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":[159,50,204,193],"class_list":["post-703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-market-insights","category-power","category-renewables","tag-cost","tag-generation","tag-study","tag-wind"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703","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=703"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":705,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions\/705"}],"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=703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/allenergyconsulting.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}