The Institute for Energy Research is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.

About IER
Latest Analysis
December 21, 2012

The Myth of Wind and Solar Energy: They Are Not Free

December 21, 2012
Info Facebook

The public is repeatedly told that wind and solar are “free” energy sources. Of course, this statement relates to costs once the plant is constructed and operating because, like hydropower, there is no ‘fuel cost’ with wind and solar power as there is with fossil fuel and nuclear generating technologies. But even that statement is a bit misleading, for intermittent technologies like wind and solar cannot be relied upon to produce power when needed, and must have other technologies to back them up. The cost of the back-up power, usually gas-fired or coal-fired generation, is not added to the cost of wind and solar power, so the public is less aware of the issues of using these intermittent technologies.

Currently, the existing fleet of fossil fuel generators is handling this problem. But as state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs) increase over time, the problem will become more acute. Currently, 30 states and the District of Columbia have RPSs, which require the generation and/or sale of a specified amount of qualified renewable energy by certain set dates. These mandates were the major reason for the recent rapid escalation of solar and wind power, and, of course, other state and federal subsidies helped too. But, when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, coal and natural gas are used to provide the power that must be available on demand.

That sounds easy, but easy isn’t always the case. When the wind stops blowing or a cloud goes by a solar facility and it is during the afternoon when air conditioning demand is high, the back-up technologies must be up and spinning to provide electricity without disrupting the grid, i.e. to ensure there are no blackouts or other disruption of demand. Coal capacity, for example, was never planned to be used in this way. It is considered a base-load technology and was designed to run continuously. The greater the amount of wind and solar power on the electricity grid, the more severe the back-up problem becomes.

Let’s look at an example.

The Case of California

California currently gets 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, but not all of it is from wind and solar. Hydroelectric power and geothermal power make up a fair share. By 2020, 33 percent of the state’s electric generation is to be from qualified renewable generating sources—an amount that Governor Jerry Brown wants to up to 40 percent.

California maintains a reserve margin of 7 or 8 percent above projected daily demand, but by 2020, the California Independent System Operator, the company that runs the grid, estimates that the state will need to double its reserve capacity due to the 33 percent renewable mandate. And by 2017, the independent system operator is estimating that the state will be short by about 3,100 megawatts of flexible power that it can dedicate to meeting reserve needs. This is about the same amount of power as produced by three nuclear units. So far the State Public Utility Commission has been noncommittal in requiring this extra capacity, most likely due to its cost.

But the grid stability issues the independent system operator fears are real. For example, one afternoon in November, a huge number of wind turbines in California stood still because the air was too calm to turn their blades. That afternoon, just 33 megawatts of wind power statewide were generating electricity from a total wind capacity of 4,000 megawatts. That’s less than one percent of the state’s potential wind capacity.  With intermittent sources of electricity, the difference between “installed capacity” and capacity at a given moment when the power is needed can be extreme.

According to Jan Smutny-Jones, executive director of the Independent Energy Producers Association, California will need to make billions of dollars in investments to prevent electrical grid problems, which will increase costs for both residents and businesses. The renewable energy mandate coupled with the closure of coastal power plants has created “one big happy dysfunctional system.”[i]

What Mr. Smutny-Jones is alluding to is California’s closure of 19 gas-fired generating plants by 2020 because their cooling intake pipes suck in and kill fish even though the California Water Quality Control Board does not know the extent of the fish kill. One company, Virginia-based AES, conducted a study of its gas-fired plant in Huntington Beach and found that just four pounds of fish and other marine life per day were lost, which is about what one pelican eats.

Conclusion

Take California’s situation and magnify it by the other 29 states with an RPS and one can see that grid reliability issues will be rampant in the next 5 or so years. Add to this the new regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency that are expected to close 30 or more gigawatts of coal-fired power plants throughout the country in the next few years and we are beginning to see an untenable situation surfacing nationwide. The judgment of politicians is making our electricity grid unreliable and only billions of dollars in future expenditures will make it work—a cost that struggling consumers and businesses will need to pay.

Wind and solar power’s hidden costs will rear their ugly heads shortly and the consumer will pay higher electricity rates. Add to this what taxpayers are paying in subsidies for these technologies, which in fiscal year 2010 alone was over $6 billion[ii], and one is left to wonder where the free market has gone and what the destruction of reliable, affordable and abundant energy will mean for our nation’s future.  Hidden costs, unsustainable subsidies, decreased reliability and increased costs associated with artificial mandates and dictates may be setting the United States up for a “power cliff,” in much the same way that government policies have led to the “fiscal cliff” facing the nation right now.



[i] Los Angeles Times, Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels, December 9, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-unreliable-power-20121210,0,6250142.story?page=1

[ii] Energy Information Administration, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010, August 1, 2011, http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/


View Comments
  • http://profiles.google.com/goggin.michael Michael Goggin

    All of the myths in this piece have already been debunked at the link below. If you ask the California grid operator, they will tell you that they are leading the way in reliably integrating large quantities of renewable energy.
    http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=20482

    Michael Goggin, AWEA

    • DonHavlicek

      There is NO SUCH thing as ‘renewable’ energy … alternative, yes … but energy may not be created not destroyed … only converted from one form to another … that is why coal/gas/nuclear plants are so efficient compared to solar/wind plants. They DIRECTLY convert one form of energy to another … they do NOT require multiple layers of conversion … and do NOT rely on methodology which is not FULL-TIME in nature.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002255979282 Quin Bagwell

        Multiple Layers of conversion? The wind turns a turbine which generates electricity. What layers? Full time in nature ? I suspect the wind will still be blowing long after the fossil fuels are gone.

      • http://profiles.google.com/goggin.michael Michael Goggin

        Fossil fuels “DIRECTLY convert one form of energy to another” and “do NOT require multiple layers of conversion?” Let’s see:

        -Plant photosynthesis creates organic matter (very inefficient)
        -Large amounts of heat, pressure, and time act on organic matter to create fossil fuels (energy lost, low productivity, takes massive amount of time)
        -Those fossil fuels are drilled or mined (energy lost)
        -Fossil fuels are transported to a power plant (energy lost)
        -Fossil fuels are burned, heating water that has been pumped into the power plant, creating steam (energy lost)
        -Cold water is pumped in to create a temperature/pressure differential (energy lost)
        -Pressure differential drives a turbine (energy lost)
        -Turbine drives a generator (energy lost)

        That’s eight steps. Wind energy uses only two steps (the last two from above), and solar photovoltaics use one.

  • shadowgraph

    Three big problems with this article.

    1.) Though the article does detail problems with the transition to a renewable power grid, the problems cited don’t really support the headline. Part of California’s goal, hand in hand with renewable energy, is to diversify their grid, the philosophy of a diverse grid will not have catastrophic blackout (choosing fail-gracefully over fail-safe, because fail-safe isn’t realistic). California has done a piss poor job in its execution of a wise policy, and though doesn’t face catastrophic blackouts, every few years is dogged with brown outs because they aren’t building their diverse grid (a combination of renewable and non-renewable) in pace with demands. So non of the legitimate issues raised in the article are only tangentially about solar power at all.

    2.) Institute for Energy Research has received $307,000 from Exxon/Mobil since 1998. It’s not an independent source.

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/12/21/the-myth-of-wind-and-solar-energy-they-are-not-free/

  • http://twitter.com/GoRasika Rasika Athawale

    Are the authors not aware of ‘Energy Storage technologies’ – which can provide an alternate way for not having to invest in back-up power as well as acting as the grid frequency controller?

  • Longboat

    What a load of old codswallop! Why don;t you just come out of the closet and admit you are not an institute of anything, just a mouthpiece for ignorance, funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

  • Pingback: IER: Good post on the myth of “free” green energy @ Coalblog

Back to top