Intermittent Renewables

As we have learned in the preceding chapters, integrating renewable technologies on the grid introduces more unpredictablility on the grid. The more unpredictable a grid is the greater amount of peak load power that is required. Even if a portion of the intermittency is predictable, rapid fluctuation of power generation will still necessitate greater peak load power.

To make renewables more attractive to more states they must produce power more consistently. With solar photovoltaics this is nearly impossible because of clouds. However, with wind, wind generation can be made much more consistent in much of the United States where the wind is currently inconsistent. Engineers have found that in much of the United States that the wind is much more consistent between 600 foot and 900 foot in altitude. Taller and larger wind turbines absolutely do have the potential to produce competitive energy that is much more consistent and more importantly, they do not need subsidies to do so.

This undoubtedly begs the question to be answered "But what is the effect of an 800 ft wind turbine on the environment?" The answer is almost invariably that these wind turbines can have an impact on migratory bird patterns. However, the biggest impact is psychological. The psychological impact of wind turbines should not be discounted. Such large and moving structures can make people physically ill due to their imposing presence. Of course, turbines that are built to close to residential and business properties can have physical effects on humans and animals from low frequency sound waves to light flicker (strobing). Property values can be negatively or positively impacted by either the acceptance or rejection of wind turbines. Extremely tall wind turbines do leave an indelible mark on the landscape.

Here's the problem, while wind turbines that are not that tall (150 feet and below) do not have as much as a psychological impact on humans and animals, in most places, these shorter wind turbines cannot make a profit without being heavily subsidized and have a maximum amount of intermittency as compared to their much taler and larger cousins. The taller wind turbines (above 600 feet) are profitable without subsidies in most places but impact humans and animals the most psychologically.

For some people, they would just say "get over it!" Legislators do need to appreciate the right of private landowners. There is a huge financial incentive for farmers to put these wind turbines on their properties. In many cases, the land rental on wind turbines can offset much or all of a farmer's property tax. This helps farmers, especially if their harvest is not good or if the price of the commodity they are growing takes a nose dive. This is why wind power is so attractive in Texas and Iowa, two states with an abundance of agriculture and a very strong agriculture lobby.

While Ohio has a very strong lobby, Ohio does not have the wind resources that Texas and Iowa has and as Ohio's wind farms reach the end of their useful lives - there will be an urge to replace them with taller and larger wind turbines. Where 300 foot and below wind turbines make sense in Texas and Iowa - they do not make sense in Ohio without subsidies.

While trying to avoid the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) mentality that many power generation facilities suffer from in getting licensed - the specter of towering 600 to 900 foot behemoths on the horizon is a legitimate concern and can impact psychological health no different that a 600 to 900 foot billboard. We recommend letting counties decide by referendum on structures taller than 300 feet.

We have to be honest with one another about energy and about the Renewable Energy Credit scam. Energy resellers are out there misrepresenting and causing to the confusion of the electrical grid.

A company buying RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) is not providing consumers with renewable energy when they match energy use with RECs. This is fraudulent advertising that legislators should outlaw.

Renewable Wind and Solar

With few exceptions, as soon as renewable energy (wind and solar) is produced it is sold on the grid. When energy is produced by renewable wind and solar a REC is produced. The REC scheme was created to punish grids that primarily had dirty sources of energy to make their energy cost more and to reward those grids that added wind and solar. If a grid had too much dirty energy on it, dirty energy generators could still produce energy but they were required to buy a certain amount of energy credits to offset their pollution. The cost of buying the REC was to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher energy costs to meet pollution control standards. With higher energy costs, the thought was that consumers would use less dirty sources of energy and more "clean" sources of energy. By making dirty sources of energy more expensive it would make more expensive renewable energy seem like not such a bad deal.

Big Corporations buy into RECs

Large corporations looking to capitalize on being good stewards of the planet to boost their brand started purchasing RECs to offset their energy costs so they could say that they were 100% carbon neutral. This is, in almost all instances, an untrue statement. RECs do not somehow magically make renewable energy and it is not a representation of energy produced but unused. While we are all connected to the grid we can all equally claim grid generation use. At the end of the day just because you purchased a REC does not mean that you offset any of your dirty energy use. Buying a REC does not produce more any more renewable energy - though it does make more profit for renewable energy producers. Do these producers then spend this money to expand generation or do they pay their shareholders dividends?

Misperceptions cause a Renewable Energy Bubble

With many people wanting to be good stewards of the planet - the misperception of people believing that they are actually buying renewable energy - helps to make the Renewable Energy Industry seem very profitable. Mandates, plus subsidies, plus RECs is an artificial mechanism put in place that is supported government to ensure the profitability of wind and solar. Without the combination of mandates, RECs, and subsidies most wind projects across America would not be profitable.

In Ohio, as a legislator, you can choose to ignore how unprofitable legacy wind and solar is without government subsidy or RECs - but long-term legacy wind and solar technology in Ohio is not sustainable and does not meaningfully positively impact the grid. If newer projects are to move forward to meet renewable energy goals they will be best met with the tallest wind turbines possible. The taller the wind turbine the more local residents you will get resisting their construction.

Large batteries backing up the grid seems like a dream come true for wind and solar technologies and for grid operators. Unfortunately, it seems as if it is economies of scale that make battery technology viable. Most utility companies do not have enough money for the upfront costs of grid scale battery storage and small projects tend to not be economical. While battery storage helps to eliminate the need for inefficient complementary energy for wind and solar and can make wind and solar energy consistent and available on demand - batteries also help other energy technologies be more efficient and effective in energy delivery.

Ideally, with a large enough battery storage system, it could take the place of all the inefficient peak load power and all the energy could come from baseload sources. A battery storage system would radically simplify the grid and make it more secure and stable. Current goals for such a system is to supply the grid for 3 to 4 hours if the power was cut.

As a disruptive technology on the grid this is a game changing technology. Without wind and solar the batteries radically reduce GGEs by displacing inefficient peak load producers.

Here is the problem - the transition to to grid scale batteries needs to displace a large amount of peak load generators all at once to make it economically feasible. There are investments that have been made into these peak load generators and electricity consumers will be paying for them even when they are taken offline if their debt has not been retired. So while battery technology is already theoretically economically feasible - the timing of its implementation will most likely never happen on a large scale without a significant drop in the cost of batteries or a dramatic rise in the cost of peak load electricity.

Grid scale storage batteries add safety and security to a grid and should be considered when fortifying the grid for emergency services.

Grid Scale Energy Storage

When a state mandates that residential interconnect agreements are mandatory for wind and solar then the state is introducing greater unpredictability to the grid. If this happens on a large enough scale, it can necessitate that more peak load power be added to the grid to accommodate the unpredictability.

Ideally, homes adding residential solar would also add their own battery storage. Unfortunately battery storage is a large upfront cost and in most cases out of reach for most home owners. The same is true for residential wind - these intermittent technologies if connected to the grid in great enough numbers can have the same effect as a utility scale project.

Residential Renewable (Solar)

• State legislators should consider replacing RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards) which are mandated goals set by the legislature for the state with a CRS (Carbon Reduction Standard) and a ZES (Zero Emission Standard) that is technology neutral. This allows all technologies to compete to reduce carbon emissions.

• Unless state legislators adopt a long-term plan for the implementation of intermittent power generators they should mandate some amount of battery storage requirement for new installations so as to not exacerbate inefficient peak load energy producers.

• State legislators should consider passing a law that prevents construction of energy generation facilities greater than 300 feet without a county wide referendum.

• State legislators should consider the strategic use of battery backup for extreme weather emergencies and to potentially help to mitigate terrorists attacks on the grid. Legislators should consider developing a battery plan for the grid to compensate for the intermittency of renewables.

• State legislators should consider protecting consumers from energy resellers that claim to deliver 100% renewable energy from the grid. This is a false claim.