NREL Study Shows 20% Wind Power is Possible in US by 2024
20 January 2010
The US Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS). The two-and-a-half year technical study of future high-penetration wind scenarios was designed to analyze the economic, operational, and technical implications of shifting 20% or more of the Eastern Interconnection’s electrical load to wind energy by the year 2024.
The study identified operational best practices and analyzed wind resources, future wind deployment scenarios, and transmission options. Among its key findings are:
The integration of 20% wind energy is technically feasible, but will require significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure and system operational changes in order for it to be realized;
Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required for all 20% wind scenarios studied;
The relative cost of aggressively expanding the existing transmission grid represents only a small portion of the total annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied;
Drawing wind energy from a larger geographic area makes it both less expensive and a more reliable energy source—increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable;
Wind energy development is a highly cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions—as more wind energy comes online, less energy from fossil-fuel burning plants is required, reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
Carbon emissions are reduced by similar amounts in all scenarios, indicating that transmission helps to optimize the electrical system and does not result in coal power being shipped from the Midwest to New England States; and
Reduced fossil fuel expenditures more than pay for the increased costs of additional transmission in all high wind scenarios.
To put the scale of this study in perspective, consider that just over 70% of the US population gets its power from the Eastern Interconnect. Incorporating high amounts of wind power in the Eastern grid goes a long way towards clean power for the whole country. We can bring more wind power online, but if we don’t have the proper infrastructure to move that power around, it’s like buying a hybrid car and leaving it in the garage.
—David Corbus, NREL project manager for the study
Resources
20% by 2024 will barely cover the increase of consumption of electricity of the country in the same time line (I think it almost double every 30 years). Means we will still burning as much coal as today...and I haven't mentioned that we should have 20% electric cars at the time, as some suggest here...
Posted by: Treehugger | 20 January 2010 at 12:50 PM
Naturally, the usual gang of people will complain about transmission lines and wind turbines in the landscape looking ugly as they prefer beautiful coal mines and coal power plant that emit toxic smoke and deplete scare freshwater resources.
One way to get it done anyway is to use superconductive power lines in underground pipes that are economic compared to conventional transmission when they are done in a massive scale (with 5GW transmission lines). There is a great exhibit on the issue at the webpage of American Superconductor. (1)
Also it should be noted that all of USA’s coal power plants producing 50% of all US electricity could be replaced by about 1000 GW of wind power costing 1500 billion USD at today’s prices for on-shore wind turbines. 1500B USD is less than 10% of the US GDP in one year. This is not much for getting rid of all coal power and their related problems that cause thousands of people to die every year of deceases directly related to that industry.
1) http://www.amsc.com/products/applications/utilities/superconductorpipeline.html
Posted by: Account Deleted | 20 January 2010 at 01:19 PM
"increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable"
It's telling that they didn't extend this line of reasoning to include multiple renewable energy sources.
Increasing the source diversity of renewable energy projects[wind, solar, biomass, tidal, hydro] in a given operating pool makes the aggregated output more predictable and less variable.
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/01/combined-power-plant-and-biogas-in.html
Posted by: ai_vin | 20 January 2010 at 01:26 PM
Wind farms production (and wind velocity) can be forecasted with enough lead time to start NG power plants connected to the same power network.
A 30+ % wind power share is very possible, specially with more constant off-shore large wind turbines and some storage units.
Posted by: HarveyD | 20 January 2010 at 01:35 PM
Upgrading gas plants to solar assisted combined cycle would sit along side extra wind power quite well and pumped hydro stations can be uprated, same MWh/yr but more instantaneous MW by adding extra turbines to help with the extra wind.
Also replacing gas / oil powered heating with high efficiency heat pumps is becoming cost effective with far more stable electricity prices compared to the raw fuels.
Posted by: 3PeaceSweet | 20 January 2010 at 02:32 PM
Treehugger:
It's true that growth would erode the "gain" -- but it's also true that California has been able to bend their electricity curve -- actually decrease total consumption despite growing population and GDP. I suspect that the rest of the country could follow suit with improved building codes, zoning codes, and energy efficiency requirements and incentives.
So it's true, just getting to 20% wind power by 2024 doesn't solve the problem... but no one solution will. This could be a key part of the solution, and it reinforces that wind can be used as base load with sufficient geographic diversity of turbines and distribution system.
Posted by: stomv | 20 January 2010 at 03:00 PM
3PS:
Yes; Hydro, with huge water reservoirs, is an ideal companion for Sun and Wind interruptable-variable power sources. However, one must have enough hydro power to take the load whenever the other two sources dont produce enough. That's where USA falls short.
Without enough hydro, other storage sources must be installed, to go much above 20% interruptable.
Very wide geographic diversity, with an excellent upgraded power network, would also help to mitigate (lower the impact of) Sun & Wind selective area low production periods.
Smart meters could also help to reduce peak loads, at least for the short time required to bring more NG plants on line.
Posted by: HarveyD | 20 January 2010 at 04:08 PM
Treehugger - you contend that this study does not account for an increase in electricity demand and state that it is possible to covert 20% of power (based on 2024's requirements) to wind power? Please provide evidence to back this claim.
Posted by: Patrick | 20 January 2010 at 05:01 PM
The fact of the matter is we will find out the limit when we reach it and things start to go splat. Its useless to worry at this point as long as we manage to have enough capacity in the works to deal with whatever limit we find.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 20 January 2010 at 10:13 PM
wintermane,
The fact of the matter is we will find out the limit when we reach it and things start to go splat.
And how exactly will things start to go 'splat'? Please share your knowledge with us.
Guessing from what you might mean, real life shows quite the opposite. Installation of wind power is more than erecting turbines. Over time, energy companies learn to adapt to the specifics of wind power. Grids are reinforced to cope with extra power flows. More CCGT power plants are built instead of coal (in the case of Spain for example) because they cope better with variable load. New operating procedures, better wind prediction, tighter specs for wind turbines, etc. People can learn and technology can adapt.
By the time the US reaches 20%, I'm sure things will have progressed enough to enable the next step to 30%. If that might not be the case, then that 20% is not wasted. It will still generate a lot of usable electricity.
Changing to renewables is not like building a bridge. A bridge that spans 20% is a failure. Wind power providing 20% of electricity is a significant contribution.
Up to now, no one has yet proven there is a hard limit.
Posted by: Arne | 21 January 2010 at 03:21 AM
AS I said when things start going splat we will know. If they never do we will know te limit was 100% its simple as that.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 21 January 2010 at 03:40 AM
There is a limit to the percentage of wind power in the grid but it is not technical. It is economic. As the percentage of wind power in the grid increases the marginal cost of adapting to the greater need for grid leverage will increase. I believe 50% wind power is economical for most countries although it will require a huge expansion of the grids capability to import and export electricity between geographic regions. It will also require a smart grid that can equate demand and supply of electricity at the consumer level through instantly varying prices for that electricity.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 21 January 2010 at 04:22 AM
Look for a lot of activity in utility scale electricity storage starting this year. There are at least two CAES facilities in the works and multiple new pump-up hydro plants.
Storage makes intermittent sources such as wind and solar 24/365 reliable and dispatchable.
Posted by: Bob Wallace | 21 January 2010 at 05:21 AM
wintermane
thnx, got that.
Posted by: Arne | 21 January 2010 at 07:05 AM
Better site selection and improved equipment design can increase wind turbines production factor up to 50%. There are many untapped places with excellent 7 to 9 wind quality. Many of those sites are close to major transmission lines.
Labrador and Hudson Bay very long shores have very high quality untapped wind potential. Coupled with nearby very large hydro plants, some 40,000 large wind turbines could easily double the total e-energy potential in the area.
Those extra 80,000 mega-watt or the equivalent to 80 nuclear power plants could supply enough clean e-energy for most of the PHEVs and BEVs in Eastern Canada and USA.
An investment of $10B to $20B a year for the next 25 years would be required.
Using existing and future nearby hydro power plants as back up + for peak demands, the network would be energized 100% of the time while using all the energy that wind farms can produce. That is the way to get 50+% production from wind farms.
Posted by: HarveyD | 21 January 2010 at 07:13 AM