Well I would like to take a diplomatic stance on this issue!!! the article points out certain critical issues regarding the renewable energy sources for "base load requirements". But it is also an important point that peak load power is expensive and this can be provided with the help of these renewable sources.

Also renewable energy sources such as PV and Wind are still developing rapidly and these sources will be grid movers in a few years to come!!! Hence it will take time for renewables to become a major percentage of the grid supply...hence to kind of balance the time when fuel becomes really inaccessible and renewables provide a secure grid supply, these technologies are being invested in massively since past few years!!!

This is my point of view and could be completely Scheiße bcoz I am only a begginner in analysing the energy industry!!!

P.S. | April 6, 2010 13:09 | Report Abuse

I've been paying more for energy that doesn't use fossil fuels for over 2 years and don't mind that it is 15% more expensive. However, when my current contract is renewed my electrical power from renewable sources will likely be less than fossil fuel sources.

Robert S. | April 6, 2010 13:11 | Report Abuse

It is likely that the intermittent nature of renewable energies will contribute to an occasional, localized destabilization of our antiquated energy grid. Grid however is of strategic importance to any country. I’m sure everyone has heard the phrase “smart grid”, so new trends are actually desired leading towards more distributed power generation in urban / industrial areas with highest power demand, reducing transmission power losses, automation, generally making power generation, distribution and use and monitoring, management a more efficient affair. Read up on what is going on in EU in terms of renewable energy, the grid, energy pricing, etc. In terms of trends, it is a perfect place to observe indicating what is coming to North America as they had to deal with most of the issues while we only start talking about these.
In the long term, the renewables & grid issues may be a short term pain for a long term gain. I view it as a positive change and opportunity as it will lead to more investment, generated revenues based on value, innovation and job creation. So I don't view it as too green or too soon.

Would I be willing to pay more for power? I have kids, observe trends and don’t think much about our need for an instant gratification, so you bet!
We are already on 100% clean, renewable power. I look at it as a very small, but significant investment into our collective future.
You can find my name here:
http://www.bullfrogpower.com/powered/homes.cfm?province_code=on
The number of subscribers is growing every day.

Lubo Morhac | April 6, 2010 14:25 | Report Abuse

You are absolutely right. Very little public thought has been put into grid stability. PV solar and wind are tremendously destabilizing, and generally require spinning reserves about equal to their production level. The DoE just published a report  http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html   that the press reports as "20% renewables possible -$93 billion needed to upgrade the grid". This is East Interconnection, ignoring Texas and the West.

Lost in the back are serious questions of whether it is is actually possible to upgrade the grid. This not to make a smart grid, this is just the bare minimum to keep the juice flowing.

BTW, making ice is standard technology where there is time of day electricity pricing. It is just our stupid regulations preventing it.

Rick K | April 6, 2010 17:20 | Report Abuse

I'll suggest that there are multiple factors involved here.

First is that the grid was designed decades ago without the concept of distributed and or micro generation. The grid was in designed based on unlimited oil/fossil fuel concepts and while correct based on the information at that time, is now outdated and in need of repair/redesign.

Second, from a financial point the utilities recognize they lose revenue with distributed and micro generation. That is a no-brainer, ultimately RE decreases their billings or can cost them money if excess power is generated and a feed-in-tariff exists (even a net FIT). So they don't like it. What is not mentioned is that the utilities can utilize the the RECs to meet renewable portfolio standards. I would guess that the fines for missing these targets are higher than the costs of making them, so that argument doesn't make sense.

Finally, there seems to be disconnect in that local generation during the day (peak hours) decreases the load requirements due to distributed micro generation. If my meter spins backwards or forward slower after my building uses what it needs, I'm adding to the grid, or at least taking less out. Therefore decreasing my demands from the grid. Seems to be exactly what _is_ needed during peak times.

The grid is week to start with - remember brown outs, ENRON, etc? Don't blame the grid, blame the outdated design and upkeep.

Greg B | April 6, 2010 20:47 | Report Abuse

Any new solution will come with a new twist (a price to pay) that some opponents or the spoiled call it "problem". The grid and the management system were built in late 19th century. In 21st century's standard, it is inefficient, ineffective, unsafe, difficult to maintain, not flexible, etc. (although it works).

The power grid is long overdue for a fundamental structural upgrade in both hardware and software. Let's take this once in a lifetime opportunity to do a meaningful change along with the green campaign. Smart meter, smart grid, intelligent power generation & distribution... If we don't do it now, our next generations will ask why their ancestors felt so cozy and didn't do the obvious...

The evolution of power grid should be like internet grid, from telephone line, coaxial cable, then evolving into fiber optics with denser, faster and more secure protocols. Hopefully utilities will be on the same side this time.

Cliff T | April 7, 2010 07:46 | Report Abuse

Are we relying on solar, wind or thermal to replace the fossil fuel generated grid? At this phase, renewable energy lowers the use of fossil fuels and in so doing assists in saving depleting oil and gas resources, the environment, the atmosphere and quite possibly mankind. Utilities that argue renewables are unstable are siting a well known fact that solar and wind at present produce flex power or power that varies in strength depending on sun tracking, shading, weather conditions etc. The fact is, that any alternative power that is produced, adds to and supports the grid without the damaging effects of fossil and nuclear fuels that produce carbon dioxide pollution and dangerous byproducts. As far as saying "they can't accept any more electricity from intermittent sources" is a blatant attempt to cloud the good of renewables for the high profit oil and coal status quo. What they fail to mention is that many State and City governments have mandated that a portion of electrical production must come from renewables.
Isn't it time to stop waging wars for oil and oil profiting fat cats and start investing in the safe and abundant resources of sun, wind and geothermal?
To answer your first question, we haven't jumped fast or far enough to stem the damage done by pollution, global warming,GHG, or the devastating effects of nuclear accidents. Has everyone forgotten Three Mile Island or Chernobyl? Use this link for more information on gas and coal fired generators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station .
As for your second question, who are you trying to kid? The cost of clean energy is much cheaper and less painful than the price of allowing our children to breath polluted air, drink contaminated water or the proliferation of asthma, cancers and lung disease. These and many more deadly conditions are byproducts of allowing an elite few to pollute for profit. If you are part of the pollute for profit sector or more importantly, if your not gaining from pollution, isn't it time to put a stop to it? Isn't it time for us to insist that our National policy be one of sustainability, independence from foreign oil and vibrantly GREEN? Earth is where we live, lets protect her.

Alford O | April 7, 2010 17:15 | Report Abuse

I don't believe we have jumped the gun in our expectations for renewable energy. We need to explore all alternatives to continuing our use of fossil fuels while keeping the electricity grid stable and secure. With solar providing electricity during the day and wind providing electricity at night we have the start of balancing increased capacity. The next focus needs to be on efficient storage of excess capacity as close as possible to the electricity consumer so that the impact to the grid is minimized. Imagine solar and wind for every home and business coupled with on-site storage. Each consumer or business would then only consume electricity from the the grid when local demand exceeds local supply. This approach would significantly lessen the demand on the grid.

Gavin | April 8, 2010 00:07 | Report Abuse

The remark by Rick K above is totally wrong about spinning reserves required to support increases in variable generation. The impact of adding more variable generation will vary somewhat from one system to another, but in general the impacts upon spinning reserve requirements are much more modest than he states. He is unfortunately right about the difficulty of getting transmission built, and adding more transmission will be essential if we hope to continue doubling our wind generation every two or three years.

Most major utilities can accommodate large amounts of variable resources such as wind, however, and the methods through which to do that are well understood. Xcel, for example, is counting on wind as their major new energy source for the next few decades, until wind reaches about 30% of their resource mix. They will do that through two key adjustments. First, they will add high efficiency gas generators at strategic locations that will be responsible for about 6% of the new energy on the system. Second, they will be able to absorb more variability through geographic diversity and a large, consolidated balancing area. That is, because they are operating in a large electric market that has consolidated control areas - the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO).

The key principles involved are discussed in a special report from the North American Electric Reliability Commission (NERC) entitled "Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation." See the full report here http://www.nerc.com/docs/pc/ivgtf/IVGTF_Report_041609.pdf

Another good source of information is the web site of the Utility Wind Integration Group http://www.uwig.org/

Randall | April 8, 2010 02:28 | Report Abuse

I believe that in order to offer competitive renewable solutions in the future, we must begin introducing them as rapidly as possible today. The goal for society should be a well rounded "smart-grid" which can accept the ebb and flow associated with renewable technologies. We can't depend on the wind nor can we depend on the sun (or any other renewable technology) exclusively. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc... will always effect the renewable energy arena. Smart grids with power storage as well as modernizing old technologies such as coal are essential to having an energy network that is green, reliable, sustainable, cost effective, and long term.
By leaping into the renewable energy market now, we will continually push technology to become even more reliable and cost effective. This market has stimulated research and job growth which will have a profound effect on revolutionizing renewable energy sources even further. There will always be the next "weakest link" in a system. It's inherent of any developmental process. Where we are at now is only the beginning of renewable energy development and companies that are in this market will push the utility markets to "catch up" with technology.

Evan | April 8, 2010 13:44 | Report Abuse

I think we have not jumped fast enough given our current technical ability to generate. We have done away with steamships in light of jets but still our power supplys for the most part are underwritten by old thinking. It is my hope that in my lifetime I will see solid state technologies start to dominate power supply markets.

AM | April 8, 2010 23:00 | Report Abuse

Robert S. -- I've been paying more for energy that doesn't use fossil fuels for over 2 years, too, and don't mind that it is, in my case, 20% more expensive. However, when my current contract is renewed there is a good chance a major subsidy will go away and it will be 50% more expensive PLUS I'm not okay with the amount of acreage needed for the wind farm that supplies my cooperative is buying its power from. There's impact and then there is impact.

KGB from denver | April 9, 2010 14:18 | Report Abuse

This is not just to do with 'green energy'. It has a great deal to do with the growth in supply and use of electronic gadgets - phones, computers, personal stereo etc. (digital and wireless products consume upwards of 5 times the power of analog and wired products).

Geothermal sources of energy will be prone to earthquakes, this is not new; the thermal vent is a hole in the earth's crust.

We have been warned of power outages for the past ten years and more because there is a disconnect between power generators and sellers. We buy electricity at the lowest available price from sellers but the sellers don't own the power stations and aren't factoring in the need for new generators to be built. The building program around the world has been much lower than necessary. This is why brownouts (local power supply failures) have been increasing. California and Texas have brownouts most summers and Central Europe is expecting them in the coming years as temperatures rise (also this winter causes power failures because of excess demand)

On top of this, the grid itself is unstable and badly designed. Large power stations, transferring over vast distances, through single junction points (see the New England and Central Europe failures).

The problem comes down to trying to build an infrastructure on the cheap, to increase profits and over-demand. Stories of too much green probably have their origin in the petrochemical industry. Any form of power generation takes years to build and supply, so talk of the present green drive being at fault is disingenuous, the failing goes back ten to fifteen years at least.

Bottom line is that we need to go back to the reports of the 1980's that warned of supply failure and to cut back on consumption.

Martin H | April 10, 2010 01:02 | Report Abuse

Three major obstacles stand in the way of the massive roll-out of renewable energy required to stabilise atmospheric CO2 concentrations at levels compatible with the continued development of human society:

1. The mind-numbingly risk-averse nature of the energy infrastructure business.
2. The lack of political will to mandate (and where required subsidise) renewable energy generation and grid upgrades.
3. The absence of severe and immediate impacts due to climate change.

The required technology is available. Financing is possible. Yet there is an utter lack of urgency to tackle the problem.

And every second of every hour of every day mankind continues to emit over a thousand tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as if it didn't matter.

Richard C | April 10, 2010 01:09 | Report Abuse

BASELOAD, SMASHLOAD …..THIS IS THE SINGLE STUPIDEST IDIOTIC
EXCUSE YOU CAN COME UP WITH TO BASH THIS INDUSTRY....
GET REAL....CO-GENERATING ELECTRCITY H AS ABSOLUTY NOTHING TO DO WITH GRID PARITY...GET IT RIGHT....ENERGY STORAGE FROM RENEWABLES IS JUST AS STUPID A CONCEPT AS THE REST OF YOUR STATEMENT THERE IS NO VIABLE OPTION FOR STORAGE...IT JUST DON'T WORK SO DON'T EVEN ATTMEMPT TRYING TO DO IT …..PERIOD
JUST SIMPLY OVER GENERATE YOUR CONSUMPTION ALL DAY AND OFFSET THE USAGE ALL NIGHT SO AT END OF MONTH IT IS A WASH ON THE BILL....STOP WITH THIS INSIDIOUS "GOING TO USE SOLAR OR ANY RENEWABLE AS A FIX ALL, CURE ALL REPLACEMENT FOR THE GRID.....

JD | April 10, 2010 01:09 | Report Abuse

Mac - renewable energy cannot be used for baseload power generation because of their variability.Hydro power generators are also mostly used as peaking stations. It is just a matter of time that technology will catch up to facilitate the integration of renewable energy without de-stabilizing the grid

Sanjay K | April 10, 2010 01:10 | Report Abuse

We all know that we have to go the long way to non fossil energy. Even the longest way starts with the first step.
If we postpone it we should be take the blame to be to coward taking the necessary responsibility we have.
Mittigating the step is almost the same. No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. (Albert Einstein)

Wolfram | April 11, 2010 06:57 | Report Abuse

I disagree with Sanjay - renewables CAN and ARE being used as base load.

For example, Spain currently get 30% of its electricity from wind and is moving to 50%. For concentrated solar, you only really need to store the heat to provide electricity for an additional 6hrs order to shave the peak -which is they are currently doing in Spain, Nevada, North Africa and the Middle East.

The key about using renewables for base load is scale. you need to compare apples to apples. 1 coal plant is not enough for base load, just as 1 wind farm isn't. If you took all the investment that has gone into coal, gas, nuclear in the past 50 years and invested the same amount into renewables and smart grids, then you could compare the reliability of renewables, and you'll find very few problems with base load - which is why Europe is planning to do this and has already started construction some of the high voltage DC lines needed to connect renewables on this scale.

Tom Rand just wrote a coffee-table book about this. http://www.ecotenpublishing.com/

Matt | April 16, 2010 12:55 | Report Abuse

It seems that there is a lack of understanding in general about peak generation versus base load. A coal plant is not powered up and down, neither is a nuclear power plant. They both have supplemental hydro, diesel or gas powered peak generators on the existing transmission lines.

John | April 18, 2010 12:57 | Report Abuse

lots of half-truths in this string, so I feel obliged to weigh in here.
Mac: the claim that variable, intermittent or non-dispatchable energy sources "destablilize" the grid is like saying riding a bicycle destabilizes a person. It is true for a toddler, but not for an experienced cyclist.

In 1995, the Danish Grid operator said the same thing "No more wind!" That was when wind hit 5% of generation mix. Now it's over 20% -- and sometimes hits 100%. Yet they want MORE wind now. The difference? They have LEARNED how to handle this level of penetration.

We did a minute by minute analysis of the TX transmission problems of Feb 2007. The entire incident (near-blackout) would have been a non-event with just 2% more Demand Response capabilitiy (Loads Acting as a Resource as ERCOT calls it). That's double what they had at the time, yet much less than either what's feasible (according to the DOE) or what's actual in other countries like Norway, where they regularly tap into 7% of load. So instead o bringing UP more generation capacity, they bring DOWN industrial load via VOLUNTARY programs (the businesses literally bid their load on a free market). Look up NORDPOOL.

In addition to DR, there is also improved Wind Forecasting, Load Forecasting, and Supply Response (more flexible coal plants, for instance) and many other tricks of the trade. Energinet and the other European Grid Operators are 10 to 20 years ahead of most American operators. (Sorry, but it's true - they just have more experience. Also more Transmission betweeen regions, a key degree of freedom that ERCOT also lacked.)

*** Matt: Wind and Solar are not today Baseload in very many places - it is a rare occurrence without Storage, which is generally prohibitively expensive (again, there are exceptions).

*** Lawrence: there is no magic 20% boundary. What the Grid need is flexibility, and I have mentioned above about half a dozen methods to giving it that needed flexibility. Probably the most important is Transmission capacity. Think of it as Gains of Trade for energy -- Spain has great sun, North Sea has great wind, let's trade! This is the future: more electrons traveling across borders!

See the new report on 2050 Roadmap from the European Climate Foundation that has been submitted to the European Commission. Released April 13. We're talking about 100s of GW of cross-border transmission capacity -- and still, with less than 10% rise in Electricity prices, due to the fact that Sun and Wind have zero fuel cost, forever.

Chris | April 18, 2010 14:57 | Report Abuse

I absolutely don't agree! This is a good problem to have, and it will push the industry to design solutions.

You could draw a parallel between this and the high gasoline prices a couple of years ago. While people were complaining, and the media made it out to be a huge problem, I was happy to see the prices sky rocket because I knew that it would create pressures for alternatives to be developed, such as electric and hybrid vehicles.

In addition, the Smart Grid industry is growing up fast and will provide some of the solutions to this problem.

Michael | April 18, 2010 14:57 | Report Abuse

Chris,
Thank you for sorting through the data here. The Norway solution of load shedding is already a standard practice here in the US (normally determined by the utility). Planning the base load to reduce peaking requirements would work, but will require changes to how power is managed to make the current system work in this manor. A complete upgrade to microprocessor protection relays with high speed communications will be required to mange the load shedding with this amount of dexterity.(electro-mechanical relays can not be programmed or reset on the fly like a microprocessor relay can)
*** MAC: I do think you have a valid concern, but it is completely manageable with planning up front.

Peter | April 18, 2010 15:16 | Report Abuse

http://picasaweb.google.de/andreasiliou/DEWIWINDANALYSEGERMANY2009#5461931353020321634
windenergy in germany

http://picasaweb.google.de//DEWIWINDANALYSEGERMANY2009#5461931450800488306

installed capacity till 2009

in germany different regions and their powerproduction

http://picasaweb.google.de/andreasiliou/DEWIWINDANALYSEGERMANY2009#5461931492762480850

the more systems up and running the more the output is stabilized

Andreas | April 18, 2010 22:09 | Report Abuse

Pay a little more to let the earth live more.. why not?

Aya | April 19, 2010 08:52 | Report Abuse

what is needed is power storage and the ability to regulate that stored power,
my company has designed a new power plant to due just this. all energy supplies have demand issuies and my company is trying to fill this void. as i call it the missing link!!

Sean | April 20, 2010 06:39 | Report Abuse